Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Kirkcaldy District of Burghs, in the room of the right hon. Thomas Kennedy, who, since his election for the said borough, has accepted the office of Steward or Bailiff of His Majesty's three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough, and Burnham, in the county of Buckingham." [Mr. Whiteley.]

Mr. Bowles: May I ask whether there is any objection to our having, on the Order Paper, notices of Motions of this kind? Notice is given of every other Motion that is moved in the House, and as you, Mr. Speaker, have made arrangements for giving Members notice of matters that are to be raised on the Adjournment, could not notice of new Writs be given on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: It is not necessary. There are no Rules that notice of Motion for a new Writ should be on the Order Paper, for it is a matter which can be raised at any time without notice. I think that that is really the answer; it is, of course, a matter of Privilege.

Mr. Shinwell: On a previous occasion I ventured to make a suggestion that, in order not to impinge on the time that Members have for putting Questions, we might defer consideration of such matters as new Writs until the end of Questions. In view of what happened recently, is it not possible to make some such arrangement?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter not for me, but for the Government.

Mr. Rhys Davies: A much more important question is whether it is possible for anybody to explain what are the duties connected with the office of the Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds.

Mr. Speaker: That question should be asked of someone else. I cannot answer it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Young People (Training Schemes)

Mr. Viant: asked the Minister of Labour whether any consideration has or is being given to the cases of young people who, because of the war, have been denied careers to which they might have aspired and may be unemployed when the war ends; and are adequate training schemes going to be inaugurated.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): This subject was dealt with at some length in my reply of 25th March last to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Pearson), of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. I am also sending my hon. Friend the published leaflet describing the Government's Further Education and Training Scheme. The provision of training of certain kinds not covered by the scheme already announced is under consideration.

Small Businesses (Owners)

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Labour why the owners of small businesses are called for National Service and compelled to cease to trade although firms like Woolworths and Marks and Spencer have several thousand full-time employees.

Mr. Bevin: Under the arrangements for the withdrawal of men and women from the retail distributive trades no preferential treatment is given to large firms. It is further open to any person, including the working owner of a business, who is due to be withdrawn under these arrangements to apply for his case to be considered on grounds of exceptional business hardship.

Mr. Butcher: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the consideration shown by officers of his Department, may I ask whether he is aware that these large firms are securing an unfair advantage over their smaller competitors; and is he prepared to acquiesce in that position?

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that his Department has called up owners of one-man businesses, with the result that those businesses are closed; and that although


several persons employed by large firms are called up, those large firms are able to continue in business at the expense of the small men?

Mr. Bevin: A complaint is often made to me about the treatment I have given to the co-operative societies, about which my hon. Friend is very keen. It is not true.

Mr. Davies: I have sent cases to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Bevin: That complaint has been made about co-operative societies and multiple shops, but I assure my hon. Friend that the matter is dealt with equitably.

Mr. Hannah: Do the Government realise that a large number of cases at Bilston are giving great dissatisfaction, because small traders are forced out of business by being called up?

Mr. Shinwell: Can we be assured that there is no unfair discrimination between owners of small businesses and multiple firms, because it appears that a large number of small businesses are being closed down owing to shortage of labour, whereas large firms are able to carry on?

Mr. Bevin: I can assure my hon. Friend that the scales are being held fairly. If there is any complaint at all, it has rather been of the favouritism shown for small businesses. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is all very well for hon. Members to shout "No," but the war has to be fought and inconvenience is suffered by a lot of people, and I cannot keep every small shop going because it is a small shop. I have to find the man power and to provide a ratio as between one class and another.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Cannot my right hon. Friend give special instructions to hardship tribunals to show extra sympathy to the small man as against the big business, because they both serve the public in the same way?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot start issuing special instructions to statutory bodies. It would turn them into a complete farce. I might as well abolish them and do the work myself.

Mr. Butcher: In view of the importance of this matter and the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at an early date.

Coalmining Trainees (Billeting)

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the lack of organisation in Manchester for the reception of mining conscripts under which a party of 20 boys were not allotted billets for 36 hours after their arrival; and what steps he has taken.

Mr. Bevin: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend refers to a group of men from the Isle of Wight and other places in the South of England who arrived at an outlying railway station in the late evening of 19th January on their way to a coal-mining training centre in the neighbourhood of Manchester. Owing to the difficulties of transport and of black-out conditions it was impracticable to take them that night to the lodgings which had been found for them as these were scattered over a wide area. Instead, they were found emergency accommodation with food in the immediate neighbourhood. All were settled in their permanent lodgings by 2.30 on the following day.

Sir A. Knox: Is it not possible to make arrangements in time so that these boys may not be exposed to this discomfort?

Mr. Bevin: I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend not to make "-Cissies" of these boys.

Essential Work Orders

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour in how many cases the employer has refused, under the Essential Work Order, to reinstate a workman at the instance of the National Service Officer; and what action his Department has taken as the result of any such refusal.

Mr. Bevin: Information showing the exact position in individual cases of this kind is not readily available, and I should not feel justified in authorising the expenditure of the time and labour that would be involved in collecting it. It is my policy to institute proceedings in such cases wherever I am advised that the necessary evidence exists to secure a conviction.

Mr. Rhys Davies: What sort of diseased imagination does the Minister think exists where the Minister can prosecute work-people for violating his Regulations and let an employer go scot free for violating the same Regulations?

Mr. Bevin: That is another piece of bad imagination. I do not do it.

Sir Herbert Holdsworth: Is it not a fact that employers, as well as employees, do try to carry out the intentions of the Minister regarding the Essential Work Order?

Mr. Bevin: In the bulk of the cases; but there are a few exceptions, and only a few, on either side.

Transferred Workers (Billeting Allowances)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the increase in the cost of living since the beginning of the war, he is now prepared to increase the billeting allowances for transferred industrial workers.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): It is only a small minority of transferred industrial workers which has needed to be accommodated by way of compulsory billeting, and when such billeting is necessary it is for lodging only, the worker making his own arrangements for board. I have no grounds for considering that the billeting allowance payable in these circumstances calls for revision.

Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that the reference to billeting allowances is to the standard of 24s. per week which is given to industrial workers, compulsorily transferred, and does he not think that that rate of 24s., fixed at the beginning of the war, ought to be substantially increased?

Mr. Willink: I do not think that the Question makes the point which the hon. Member desires to make. The billeting allowances for transferred industrial workers are, as I said, for lodging only.

Wage Rates (Regulation)

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Labour whether steps are taken by his Department to correlate the wage rates of various industries, or whether these are solely determined by agreement between employers' associations and trades unions.

Mr. Bevin: Apart from the statutory wage-fixing machinery in certain trades and industries, it is the Government policy to entrust the responsibility for wage regulation in war-time to the industrial joint machinery, save where statutory wage-fixing already existed, subject only to the Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Order which provides for the reference of unsettled claims to arbitration.

Mr. Butcher: Has my right hon. Friend any observations to make on the recent award to surface mine-workers of 85s. a week in the light of the wages of agricultural workers of 65s.?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir; I never discuss awards in this House.

Sir Herbert Williams: In cases where the Government are really paying the money, do not the Government take some interest in these discussions between employers and employed?

Mr. Bevin: I am satisfied that the parties to this joint industrial machinery have acted with a sense of responsibility, as much as if the Government were not paying during the war.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS (DOMESTIC STAFF)

Sir John Graham Kerr: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has looked into the case of a local district hospital of which the closure at an early date is contemplated owing to the impossibility of obtaining domestic staff; whether he is aware that this closure has been staved off so far by the self-sacrificing efforts of matron and nursing staff; and what steps he proposes to take to secure that adequate domestic labour be directed to this hospital so that it may be kept available to the community.

Mr. Alexander Walkden: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the hospital at Royston, Hertfordshire, is having to close down through lack of domestic help; that the matron would be able to carry on if she could have one cook and two maids, or alternatively, three girls of 16 years of age for training; and whether he is taking any steps to meet this urgent requirement of a hospital serving a widespread area.

Mr. Bevin: The vacancies at this hospital have been given first priority


in accordance with the policy which I outlined in my reply to the hon. Member for East Islington (Mrs. Cazalet Keir) on 20th January. Two cooks and one housemaid have already been submitted and one cook and one housemaid accepted. The outstanding vacancy is for a between-maid. This was only notified to my officers on 21st January and I have not yet heard the result of the steps which are being taken to fill it.

Sir J. Graham Kerr: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the case of a local district hospital, the closure of which at an early date is contemplated owing to the impossibility of obtaining domestic staff; whether he is aware that this closure has been staved off so far only by the devotion of the nursing staff and the diversion from their proper duties; and what steps he proposes to take to safeguard the continued activities of this hospital.

Mr. Willink: I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the Reply which my right hon. Friend gave to a similar Question earlier to-day.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE OFFICIALS (PROMOTION)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour what are the factors that enter into his consideration for the promotion of officials of employment exchanges.

Mr. Bevin: Promotions are made on the recommendation of promotion boards in accordance with rules of procedure agreed by the Departmental Whitley Council. Under these rules, those officers are selected for posts in the higher grades who are considered, in the light of their qualifications and experience, to be best qualified for the post in question. In promotion to the lower grades, while merit is the determining factor, due regard is also paid to seniority.

Mr. Rhys Davies: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is possible for him to dispel, and whether he has made inquiries about, the idea that prevails in some quarters that officials of the employment exchanges are promoted, in part because of the large number of persons they direct from place to place?

Mr. Bevin: That never enters into the consideration at all. It only arises from a diseased imagination.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether in view of the satisfactory steps which have been taken to restore to agricultural use land from which open cast coal has been taken, he will take steps to see that land from which brick clay and ironstone has been removed shall be similarly levelled and re-seeded.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 10 of the statement made on 30th November, 1943, in answer to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick), of which I am sending him a copy and to which I have at present nothing to add.

Mr. Molson: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether his attention has been drawn to the proposal to erect a cement factory at Cauldon How, North Staffordshire, adjacent to the national park at Dovedale; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I am in communication with the Interim Development Authority on this matter and I can assure my hon. Friend that no such development will take place without full consideration of all the relevant factors.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)

Mr. Molson: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mrs. C. McGowan, 22, Howard Street, Glossop, made application for a pension in August, 1943, in respect of her son, who was presumed on the 25th July, 1943, to have been lost on the 27th December, 1942; and why no decision in this case has yet been notified to her.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): This claim took an exceptionally long time to settle, chiefly because of the conflicting statements as to the character and extent of the son's support of his mother. On the basis of the latter's


earlier statements it would not have been possible to admit the claim but the careful inquiries undertaken by my Department enabled an award to be made and also led to an increase in the existing pension in respect of another son.

Mr. Foster: asked the Minister of Pensions the number of mental cases discharged from the three Services, Army, Navy and Air Force; the number who have made application for pensions or allowances and the number accepted by his Ministry as being due to war service.

Sir W. Womersley: The cases of all members discharged from the Forces as invalids are considered by my Department without any application from the member concerned. It would not be in the national interest to state the number of members discharged on grounds of mental ill-health or the number of awards made in such cases.

Mr. Foster: Can the Minister state the number of cases that have been accepted by his Ministry and what number have been accepted for pensions?

Sir W. Womersley: No, Sir. I am not allowed to give any figures connected with discharges from the Forces. I will, however, ask my hon. Friend, if he has any case in his constituency which he feels any doubt about, to bring it to me. I will give my personal attention to it.

Mr. Foster: Could the Minister let me have the figures privately?

Sir W. Womersley: No, Sir.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will state or publish a White Paper to show the comparison between the pensions, including any additions thereto by way of economic cost of living, supplementary constant attendant or similar allowances, payable in the United Kingdom and in each of the four Dominions, Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, respectively, in respect of a 100 per cent. disabled private soldier and his wife and children, with any conditions relating thereto.

Sir W. Womersley: A statement on the comprehensive lines suggested could only be compiled by reproduction of the greater part of the disablement pension codes referred to. Any attempt to bring the

differing provisions into exact relation with one another would involve an amount of labour out of proportion to the value of the results, which must be misleading unless the statement were supplemented by information as to cost of living, wage levels and social service benefits available.

Sir I. Fraser: Could not my right hon. Friend give us a fair summary, in two or three pages, which would enable the House and the country to judge these matters—not figures only, but also the relative cost of living?

Sir W. Womersley: No, Sir, it would not be possible to do so without an enormous amount of labour. At the moment, my Department is hard pressed to get on with the cases of our men who are appealing now.

Mr. Shinwell: Surely, there is no difficulty in asking Dominion Governments to furnish a statement showing the rates of pensions and allowances paid, and making it available to Members?

Sir W. Womersley: I must repeat that a mere statement of the amount paid would not be sufficient for a comparison. Other factors must be taken into account, and it would involve an enormous amount of research work to give them to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Deaths from Starvation

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Secretary of State for India if he will give figures showing the number of men, women and children who have died from starvation and resulting diseases in India since the commencement of the recent famine.

Mr. Amery: No reliable figures are yet available of the number of deaths in India from starvation and resulting diseases. For the nearest estimate which can be given I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 20th January.

Mr. Davies: When does the right hon. Gentleman think he will be able to inform the House as to the deaths that have taken place, in view of the fact that the interest felt in this country in relation to the terrible famine is very great indeed?

Mr. Amery: This information has, in the first instance, to be collected by the Provincial Governments, whose machinery of collecting such information perhaps is not as effective as it might be; and then it has to be communicated to the Central Government of India before it can reach me. I hope to get information, and reliable information, as soon as possible.

Unemployment

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Secretary of State for India what are the numbers of unemployed men in India at present.

Mr. Amery: No general statistics of unemployment in India are maintained.

Mr. Davies: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the House some figures, say to within the nearest million, out of the many millions who are known to be unemployed in India? Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman's not being able to give me any information on this matter is dictated by the step that his Department has taken to drive women to work in coal mines in India, notwithstanding the large number of unemployed men?

Mr. Amery: My Department has taken no such step at all. As a matter of fact, there are not millions of unemployed in India, because a very large part of the industrial population work, when not in employment, in their villages. Statistics of unemployment are kept, I imagine, by the Provinces, but there is no general figure of unemployment for the Continent of India.

Miners (Conditions)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India the hours worked by Indian miners; their scale of wages; the number and percentage of fatal and nonfatal accidents annually; and the scope and scale of workmen's compensation.

Mr. Amery: The Indian Mines Act provides that no person may work more than six days or 54 hours in one week, or more than ten hours above ground or nine hours below ground in one day. The average daily earnings of coal miners working underground in 1942 varied from 1 Rupee 10 annas 9 pies to 10 annas and 9 pies according to the coal field. Wages have recently been substantially increased and

in most pits stand at over 50 per cent. above pre-war rates. In 1942, in all mines, 342 persons were killed in 287 accidents. 1,522 suffered serious injury and 10,871 minor injuries. The total employed was 357,600. I am sending the honourable Member a copy of the Indian Workmen's Compensation Act.

Mr. Sorensen: Has any consideration been paid to the possibility of substantially raising the wages of Indian miners and improving their conditions, and thus attracting more men to that particular employment?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, that has been considered, and I hope that more will be done in that direction.

Mr. Thorne: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the reasons why coal miners in India could not be put under the same conditions as coal miners in this country?

Mr. Amery: All the conditions in India are so very different from conditions in this country that it is impossible to draw exact parallels.

Food Situation

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that when in the recent famine the Government of Bengal realised the position and endeavoured to secure grain from the surplus areas, some 2,000 telegrams passed through the Calcutta post office advising up-country dealers not to buy or sell at the prices quoted; and whether, in the interests of the people of India, he will instruct the censorship in future to stop such telegrams.

Mr. Amery: I have seen reports to this effect. I will inquire as to the facts and as to the most suitable means of dealing with such matters in future.

Sir A. Knox: Surely the senders of those 2,000 telegrams nullified the efforts which the Government evolved to deal with the famine, because they were engineering a corner in grain. Cannot steps be taken to stop such telegrams?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, but I am really not in a position to know how far that information reached the Government of Bengal at the time or how far the Government were in a position to apply the censorship Regulations.

Sir A. Knox: Could not my right hon. Friend make the suggestion to these people, who are new to the art of government, that they might look into the matter later on, in view of the fact that thousands of persons lost their lives in the famine?

Mr. Amery: If my hon. and gallant Friend will read my answer he will find that that is exactly what I propose to do.

Political Prisoners and Detainees

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India if all the Indian political detainees and prisoners are incarcerated in India; the number of these at the present time; whether any of the Indian Congress leaders may associate together; and whether records are kept respecting the religious persuasion both of ordinary and of political prisoners and detainees.

Mr. Amery: The answer to the first and last parts of the Question is in the affirmative. On 1st November last, the latest date for which figures are available, 15,763 persons were undergoing imprisonment in connection with the Congress movement and 7,267 persons were in detention. Congress leaders detained at the same place are allowed to associate together.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the Secretary of State figures showing the respective religious persuasions of these detainees, and if so could he give those figures?

Mr. Amery: I have given the figures.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has given the general figures, not the distinct numbers of various religious persuasions?

Mr. Amery: As I understand it, these figures are taken by the various provincial authorities who are responsible for detention. No figures have been centrally supplied and I do not see any special reason for troubling the Central Government of India to collect and supply them.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISCHARGED PRISONERS (WELFARE)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider implementing the Act of 1879 or introducing fresh legislation to provide for the establishment of probation officers for discharged prisoners, whether short time or ex-convicts, with the object of doing away with the ticket-

of-leave system and the installation of whole-time welfare officers.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The main purpose of the licensing system for persons discharged from penal servitude has been to enable the police to know where ex-convicts are living. The abolition of this system was one of the changes proposed in the Criminal Justice Bill of 1939, but this question is distinct from any question of welfare arrangements for ex-convicts or ex-prisoners. A number of whole-time officers are employed by the organisations which aid discharged convicts and prisoners, and their work is supplemented by much voluntary help from public spirited persons who undertake to befriend particular prisoners.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of people in responsible positions of authority who are best qualified to know favour the abolition of this ticket-of-leave system and the expansion of the number of welfare officers? It is not a question of my personal opinion, it is a question of the widespread feeling of those in authority.

Mr. Morrison: I appreciate that, and I do not say that I am entirely satisfied with the system, but it must wait until time is available to deal with the general question of criminal justice.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRIXTON PRISON (OFFICIAL QUARTERS)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that prison officers at Brixton Prison have been ordered to occupy official quarters which have now become vacant, although some of them have had to enter into legal obligations in respect of their outside accommodation because of the inability of the Prison Commission to provide them with official quarters at the time of their recruitment; and, since many prison officers will return from the Forces after the war and will be glad of official accommodation, whether he will permit the officers now ordered into official accommodation to remain where they are.

Mr. H. Morrison: Under the prison rules every prison officer is required to occupy such quarters as may be assigned to him, and I am informed that two offi-


cers at Brixton Prison have recently been directed to occupy vacant official quarters. The general question raised in the second part of the Question is at present under consideration by the Prison Commissioners in consultation with the Treasury.

Mr. Brown: May I ask that while that consideration is being given, these officers may be left undisturbed?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir; I am afraid not. I think if we depart from the terms of the rules we shall get into difficulties.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Wardens (Hours of Duty)

Mr. Frankel: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the members of the warden's service can be compelled to do an unspecified number of hours duty in any four weeks, whereas members of the fire guard are not liable for more than 48 hours duty, which affords an inducement to some local authorities to take advantage of those who are subject to compulsory part-time service; and whether he will take steps to abolish this discrimination.

Mr. H. Morrison: No part-time member either of the warden service or the Fire Guard is required to perform more than 48 hours of rota duty at his post or action station in each four weeks. In both services this requirement has been relaxed to the fullest extent possible, having regard to the operational needs of the area concerned. In many places, this relaxation has been facilitated in the Warden Service by the system under which wardens turn out on an alert either at any time or on specified nights in place of performing the full hours of duty at the post. Local authorities have been asked to operate this "on call" system in such a way as not to interfere with the social or other activities of wardens, provided that they come on duty promptly when needed.

Respirators (Repair and Replacement)

Dr. Haden Guest: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what has been the response to the offer made under his authority of the repair or replacement of anti-gas respirators by the Civil Defence services for the civilian population.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have no statistical information yet, but the indications are, I fear, that the response has been small. I am glad of this opportunity of reminding the public of the ever-present need for being sure that their respirators are in order. The charges for repair are being waived this month and in February.

Dr. Guest: Is it not a fact that the danger of a gas attack on industrial establishments and cities still continues, and will not the right hon. Gentleman issue an urgent warning to the public of the necessity of maintaining their respirators in proper order, as a matter for the protection not only of themselves but the whole community?

Mr. Morrison: It is of course the case, as my hon. Friend says, that gas attacks are possible. I hope that the question he has put and the answer I have given will serve as a warning to the public.

Sir H. Holdsworth: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to use the advertisement columns in the Press? Money is spent on things that do not matter, and this subject does matter.

Mr. Morrison: The Press have been very good in giving publicity to the matter, and I am sure they will continue to co-operate with us.

General Sir George Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he really wants to get the respirators inspected and put in order he will have to exercise some measure of compulsion?

Dr. Guest: Will my right hon. Friend extend the time for the repair or the exchange of respirators in the London area, which has already expired? Only a fortnight, I think, was given?

Mr. Morrison: I think all the areas were the same, but I will look into that point. Regarding the point put by my hon. and gallant Friend, that has been considered but there are difficulties about it. I do not want to make Defence Regulations if I can avoid doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOUBLE SUMMER TIME

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the intentions of the Government with regard to double summer time in 1944.

Mr. H. Morrison: This matter is under consideration, and I hope shortly to be in a position to make an announcement.

Sir L. Lyle: In view of the fact that it is so important that people should have good holidays in the fifth year of the war, will the right hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to extending the time to the end of August? It will make such a difference.

Mr. Morrison: There are arguments both ways. There are minority arguments, especially in relation to agriculture, which I think I must take into sympathetic consideration, but the matter will of course be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUXILIARY POLICE FORCE

Mr. Loverseed: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Auxiliary Police Association asked last August for arbitration in regard to the pay of members of this force and are still without a reply; and whether he will agree with this request and so notify the Association.

Mr. H. Morrison: The application to which the hon. Member refers raised issues of far reaching importance which affect other services besides the Auxiliary Police. These issues are being examined as a whole by the Government and at the moment I can only say that a reply will be sent to the Association as early as possible.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is there the slightest difficulty in principle either in this or the other services to which my right hon. Friend refers in agreeing that men should have the right to go to arbitration on a question of pay?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, there are a lot of difficulties owing to repercussions, but they are being examined.

Mr. Loverseed: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there is any minimum medical grading for members, of the Auxiliary Police Force; and, if so, what it is.

Mr. H. Morrison: When police auxiliaries were originally recruited in large numbers for emergency war, duties, no minimum standard of physical fitness was laid down and none has since been pre-

scribed. At a later stage when men were enrolled in the Police War Reserve under the National Service Acts they were examined by medical boards in the same way as men called up to the Armed Forces, and only those who were classified as Grade I were accepted.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTORAL REGISTER

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state when the new Electoral Register will be ready to come into operation at by-elections.

Mr. H. Morrison: The appointed day for the coming into force of the new Electoral Register will be a day two months subsequent to the completion of the sorting and arranging in all registration areas of the material now being transferred from national registration officers to electoral registration officers. I am not yet in a position to say when this sorting process will have been everywhere completed.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: When these registers are compiled, how long will there be for people to find out mistakes and have alterations made if necessary?

Mr. Morrison: I forget. There is provision for it, but it is not as thorough as it was under the old system.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Captain ALAN GRAHAM:

32. "To ask the President of the Board of Education, on what grounds it is intended to close down the XIVth century grammar school of Saint Lawrence, at Ashburton, Devonshire; and whether it is contrary to his intention in the Education Bill now before the House to level down to a standardised pattern the varied and ancient schools of the country."

Mr. Speaker: Captain Graham.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I understand that an hon. Member in putting a Question is not permitted to express an opinion in the Question. Very often when I put a Question I would like to express an opinion. In this Question


the hon. and gallant Member who is asking it is expressing an opinion that the Minister of Education should take a certain attitude towards certain schools. Have I not the right also to express an opinion on matters on which I hold very strong views?

Mr. Speaker: I have not looked at this Question very closely beforehand and I can see no expression of opinion in it. It has passed the Table and therefore is presumably in Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Schools (Direct Grants)

Sir John Mellor: asked the President of the Board of Education whether schools which relinquished direct grants from the Board after Circular 1259, in exchange for increased grants from local education authorities, will be restored to the direct grant list should their governing bodies so desire.

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): My hon. Friend will appreciate that the responsibilities of local education authorities and the position of schools financially dependent on them would be materially affected by the present Education Bill. The conditions of recognition for direct grant have yet to be considered. I cannot, therefore, undertake that schools should be given the option of transferring to direct grant status, but my hon. Friend may take it that, in appropriate circumstances, they will not be precluded from representing a case for consideration.

Sir J. Mellor: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it was not the intention of the Circular that these schools should suffer any loss of status? Would it not, therefore, be unfair to deprive them of their right to charge fees?

Mr. Butler: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of reading the speech I made on Second Reading. He will see that I made a reference to this matter. His remarks are not very much to the point if he reads my speech.

School Meals

Sir Charles Edwards: asked the President of the Board of Education what progress has been made in providing meals for schoolchildren since he offered

equipment and pre-fabricated huts gratis for this purpose; whether this was done to raise the number of those to be provided for to 3,000,000, and how many would still be left unprovided for.

Mr. Butler: Since the free supply of premises and equipment was announced in May last, 3,850 new proposals have been approved, to make provision for 470,000 additional children. The Government is aiming at provision for 75 per cent. of the pupils in daily attendance at elementary and secondary schools, that is to say about 3,500,000. This percentage is already exceeded at many schools. So far as can be estimated at present, an average over-all provision on this scale will suffice to enable every child to dine at school who wishes to do so.

National Union of Teachers (Membership)

Sir A. Knox: asked the President of the Board of Education the number of men and women teachers; and the number of each belonging to the National Union of Teachers.

Mr. Butler: Owing to the need for reducing the collection of statistics to a minimum in war-time, complete figures are not available for a date later than 31st March, 1938. On that date the number of men and women teachers respectively employed full-time in public elementary schools, certified special schools, grant-aided secondary schools and technical schools was 65,964 and 133,220. I am informed that the present membership of the National Union of Teachers exceeds 150,000, but I have not had separate figures for men and women.

Sir A. Knox: Has it not been possible to count the teachers since the war started?

Mr. Butler: I have given my hon. and gallant Friend some fairly elaborate statistics, which I think should satisfy him.

Oral Answers to Questions — EVACUATED CHILDREN (WELFARE)

Lady Apsley: asked the Minister of Health in how many cases the parents of evacuated children have either been killed or have disappeared; and what action is taken in the latter case to secure the welfare of the children concerned.

Mr. Willink: Comprehensive statistics as to the number of parents killed or who have disappeared are not available; but particulars obtained from some of the larger evacuation areas suggest that the number of evacuated children whose parents have disappeared is small. For the time being, the children are maintained under the Government evacuation scheme, and the welfare arrangements of the scheme are available to secure their proper care. These arrangements include visits by welfare officers, sick-bay and special hostel arrangements, and provision of boots and clothing where necessary.

Lady Apsley: Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that in such cases the children are being looked after satisfactorily?

Mr. Willink: If my hon. Friend has any instances of lack of care I shall be very obliged if she will bring them to my attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Institutions (Recreation)

Lady Apsley: asked the Minister of Health whether such steps as are possible in war-time will be taken to ensure that inmates of mental homes and homes for incurables, maintained out of public funds, are supplied with simple forms of amusements such as playing cards and draughts, especially since most of this provision has become derelict in the course of the last few years.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. I sympathise with the intention of my hon. Friend's Question, and shall be glad to give what assistance I can in any case of difficulty.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that in all well-conducted public mental hospitals there is a very wide entertainment provision, even under war conditions?

Mr. Willink: I am not aware of any case where an application for help has been refused.

Hospital (Patient's Discharge)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that 14304913 Craftsman Staines, R.E.M.E., was discharged from a hospital, of the identity of which he has been informed, instructed to rejoin his unit several hun-

dred miles away, and obliged to walk four miles to the nearest town, although he had been in bed for 10 days with acute bronchitis and complained that he was still unfit; that on arrival at the town he was taken seriously ill and found to be suffering from pleurisy; and if he will take steps to ensure adequate inspection of all patients in this hospital before discharge.

Mr. Willink: I have obtained a report on this case which does not bear out the facts stated in the Question, and I will, with permission, circulate a summary of it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. With regard to the last part of the Question, I have no evidence that it is not the practice at the hospital to examine patients adequately before discharge.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is not disputed that, within an hour or so of being discharged as fit, although he complained that he was still unfit, this man collapsed with pleurisy?

Mr. Willink: I think my hon. Friend had better wait until he sees the facts as I understand them to be.

Mr. Kirby: Is it not a fact that our hospitals are so full that nearly all patients are discharged before they are cured?

Mr. Willink: No, Sir.

Mr. Gallacher: If this man actually had pleurisy, will the Minister see that he does not have to go back to the unit, as pleurisy is a very serious matter?

Mr. Willink: This man was not found to have pleurisy.

Mr. Driberg: He was certified by a doctor as having had it.

Following is the summary:

The report shows that, although the patient was in hospital for ten days, he was not at any time during that period more than slightly ill; that for several days before discharge he had been up all day; that on the day when he was to be discharged to his unit he asked and was granted leave to visit his home in the neighbouring town 2½ miles away, to which there is a bus service; that when leaving the hospital he complained of a sore throat but he had no temperature, and was not then seen by a medical officer, having been seen by medical officers on


the two previous days; that on the day after he arrived home he was reported to be unwell, and was at once re-admitted to hospital, when he was found to have some rise of temperature and a sore throat, but no pleurisy as alleged; that these conditions soon improved, and that he was then transferred to a convalescent depot.

Milk Containers (Cleanliness)

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered a communication from the Sedgefield Rural District Council urging for legislation to settle a standard of bacteriological count for rinsings of churns, bottles, &c.; and what action he intends taking.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. Under the Milk and Dairies Order, 1926, persons who empty and return churns in which milk has been delivered to them are required to cause the churns to be thoroughly cleansed before they leave their custody or control; and producers and other dairymen are required to cause all vessels used for containing milk to be kept in a state of thorough cleanliness. A considerable amount of bacteriological testing and advisory assistance in relation to the cleansing of churns is now being given under the National Milk Testing and Advisory Scheme, but I think that it would be premature to prescribe statutory bacteriological standards at the present stage.

Mr. Leslie: Will the Minister not agree that, in the interests of public health, this is a matter for attention?

Mr. Willink: It is receiving attention, but it is not easy to lay down bacteriological standards for cleansing every bottle.

Sir H. Williams: Are we to understand that the cleaners of bottles in future have to be bacteriologists, in order to count the number of bacteria?

Mass Radiography (Liverpool)

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Health whether the corporation of Liverpool has yet acquired equipment for mass radiography efforts to identify persons suffering from tuberculosis; and how does he propose to accommodate in Liverpool hospitals and sanatoria the additional cases of this disease which will inevitably be traced, having in mind the already known shortage of accommodation for such cases now existing?

Mr. Willink: No, Sir. As the corporation were lately informed, I hope to provide a mass radiography unit for Liverpool early in May. The proportion of persons examined by mass radiography who are found to require institutional treatment is very small, and I am not aware that the Corporation forseee difficulty in this connexion in the near future; having regard to the measures now being taken to increase the city's present accommodation for tuberculosis cases, of which I have informed my hon. Friend.

Mr. Kirby: Is the Minister aware that the measures proposed have not yet come to pass and that when they do, we shall be short of accommodation for those who require treatment?

Mr. Willink: The hon. Member's next Question deals with that point.

Mr. Gallacher: Has the Minister considered the material produced by Dr. Munro in Ross-shire on the limitations of radiography? He has paid particular attention to this subject and recognises the value of radiography but that there are certain limitations.

Tuberculosis (Treatment, Liverpool)

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Health whether he will visit Liverpool for the purpose of considering on the spot the treatment of tuberculosis and inspecting the provision of beds in hospitals and sanatoria for that purpose with a view to judging their sufficiency and suitability.

Mr. Willink: The matters to which my hon. Friend refers have been the subject of consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Hospitals and Health Committee of the Liverpool Corporation and the Medical Officer of Health, and I do not think it necessary to pay a special visit to Liverpool for the purpose suggested.

Mr. Kirby: If I send correspondence I have received to the right hon. and learned Gentleman will he reconsider the situation?

Mr. Willink: No, Sir; the matter is under close consideration. It is not easy to find time in these days for another visit to Liverpool—I paid one last week.

Catarrhal Jaundice

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health the extent of the outbreak of catarrhal jaundice; to what cause or causes


it is attributed; and whether the liability to infection at public baths has led to any special action being taken.

Mr. Willink: Catarrhal jaundice is not a generally notifiable disease although, for research purposes, it was recently made notifiable in certain eastern countries and I have, therefore, no definite information about its incidence. It has latterly become prevalent throughout Europe and in North Africa as well as in this country. Its causes have not been established, and at my request the Medical Research Council is at present making a special investigation of the disease. I am advised that there is nothing to show any connexion between catarrhal jaundice and public baths.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the report on the incidence of this disease will be made at an early date, because it is getting rather serious?

Mr. Willink: We would all be well advised to await the result of the investigations by the Medical Research Council.

Mr. Sorensen: That is what I mean.

Mr. Willink: It is a body independent of myself.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Was Mosley suffering from catarrhal jaundice?

Oral Answers to Questions — WATER SUPPLIES

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the threatened shortage of water in the area of London and Greater London; and what steps the Government proposes to take to assist the Water Board's efforts to reduce consumption and increase supplies.

Mr. Willink: I am aware of the position in the area. As regards the second part of the Question, no representations have been made to me by the Metropolitan Water Board for my assistance. I am aware that the Board have already taken steps to appeal to consumers to economise in the use of water, in the hope that they will not find it necessary to impose restrictions on consumption later in the year.

Mr. Morrison: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that there are a large number of water authorities in the Metropolitan area besides the

Metropolitan Water Board; and is it not a matter in which the Government should take an active part?

Mr. Willink: These authorities are the responsible authorities. I can only help them in various ways if they ask me to do so. They have not asked me.

Mr. Morrison: In view of the difficulty of pursuing this matter by question, I beg to give notice that I shall take another opportunity of raising it.

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Minister of Health if any steps are being taken to investigate the existence of hitherto unknown or unexploited water supplies in this country; and to increase the conservation of rain-water.

Mr. Willink: In reply to the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the replies given to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mrs. Wright) on 7th December and to the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on 23rd September.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Would my right hon. and learned Friend answer the second part of the Question? Further, is he aware that in rural districts where water supplies are scarce rain water which is stored on a large scale is a very effective substitute for modern pumping?

Mr. Willink: I found the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's Question a little difficult to understand but I have his point in mind and I have given considerable attention in recent weeks to its purport.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the concern felt by almost all hon. Members at the continued refusal of the Government to provide time this Session for any Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any hon. Member; and whether, in view of the undertaking given on behalf of his Administration, he will give consideration to those Motions to which more than 100 Members have subscribed.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The reasons for asking hon. Members to forgo their right of proposing Motions were given during the


Debate on the Motion to take the time of the House for Government Business. As in previous Sessions, the Government propose to allow every opportunity for Debates on matters of general interest during the present Session, but, as at present advised, I see no reason to alter the arrangements which have been accepted by the House for these difficult times.

Mr. Etherton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance of holding an even balance in this matter, in view of the undertaking the Government gave to find time in the present Session for any matter on which there was a substantial demand for a debate?

Mr. Eden: I have that very much in mind. We found time yesterday for a Debate on a matter which originally arose on a private Member's Motion. We are always ready to find time, but I want to find it within Government time, and not outside it.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS

Mr. Frankel: asked the Prime Minister why the services of ships' permanent staffs and medical trooping parties have not been recognised in the recent decisions with regard to the award of the 1939–43 or Africa Stars, although such men have seen years of service in dangerous and operational waters, have taken part in invasions, and have been chased by aeroplanes and submarines; and whether he will reconsider this decision.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Military permanent staffs of hospital ships and troopships will be eligible on the same terms as Merchant Navy personnel.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMPIRE (POST-WAR ECONOMIC POLICY)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister, whether the Government have considered the possibility of promoting agreement on post-war economic matters among the Dominions, India and Britain; whether any measures have been taken to achieve this object; and whether he will make arrangements to have a debate to

enable hon. Members to indicate their views.

Mr. Attlee: Sir. The Governments of the Commonwealth including the Government of India are in constant touch on all subjects of common interest including post-war trade. I would also refer my hon. Friend to the answer which was given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 9th November last. I do not think that at this stage a Debate would serve a useful purpose.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the pronouncements by General Smuts, and by Lord Halifax quite recently, on this matter, is it not desirable that hon. Members also should be afforded an opportunity of making a pronouncement, and more particularly in view of the forthcoming Prime Ministers' Conference?

Mr. Attlee: I do not think that it would be useful at this moment.

Earl Winterton: Supposing a substantive Motion is put down in the names of hon. and right hon. Members in different parts of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman give favourable consideration to it; and will he also consider that, after all, it is for this House to say that it wants a Debate on these important matters and that it is not merely a question for the Government?

Mr. Attlee: I quite agree and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has just stated that position. I am merely giving the opinion of the Government that, to serve the ends which we all wish, a Debate at this juncture would not be desirable.

Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: Seeing that these issues are to be discussed in the next few months, is it not absolutely essential that the Government should be armed with the view of the House of Commons on these matters?

Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that statements have been made by the Australian Prime Minister and by our Ambassador in Washington; that there is a considerable public opinion on these subjects and that it is recognised that they will be discussed at the coming Imperial Conference, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the home Imperial Government ought to give some sort of lead on these matters?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir, but in these matters on which discussion is going on, it is a question at what time it would be best to make a statement on behalf of the Government and at this particular time it would not be convenient.

Mr. Shinwell: If it is inadvisable to make a statement on this important matter, why did our Ambassador in the United States of America make such an important pronouncement; and did he consult His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Attlee: That is another matter.

Mr. Shinwell: It is not another matter. If a statement is made of world-wide importance, about which there is so much comment, surely Members of the House of Commons are entitled to take part in a Debate.

Mr. Attlee: It is for the hon. Member to put down a Question.

Mr. De la Bère: If it is other matters that matter, why not deal with the other matters?

Oral Answers to Questions — PEDIGREE BREEDING STOCK (EXPORT)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will confer with the President of the Board of Trade and his Export Group Branch with a view to assisting the breeders to expand their export of pedigree breeding stock at the earliest possible date after the conclusion of hostilities, and the desirability of having this branch of the export trade administered through his Department.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The home market has always provided the main outlet for our pedigree stock and the restoration of our live stock industry after war-time reductions is likely to make that market of greater importance in the immediate post-war years. I do not, however, underrate the value of the export market, and this is a matter on which my Department is maintaining close touch with the Board of Trade.

Mr. De la Bère: Does not the Minister realise that the export market is more important and that it does not appear to be very much alive at the moment?

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (AMALGAMATION)

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the desire of various smaller local authorities to amalgamate for the purpose of being better able to deal with post-war problems of magnitude; and whether, since this could contribute to the increased stability and efficiency of local self-government, he is prepared to approve such plans.

Mr. Willink: While referring my hon. Friend to the answers given to the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) on 14th and 26th October and to the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) on 2nd December, of which I am sending him copies, I may add that the Government welcome any consultation between neighbouring authorities which they think will contribute to the efficiency of local government in their areas.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Have the Government come to a decision that these people should amalgamate?

Mr. Willink: My hon. Friend knows what the Government's policy is with regard to the development of local government, and I cannot add anything to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Health if he is in a position to state how many supplementary pensions were adjusted for the first week's payment on the new scale, which came into operation on 17th January; and when it is expected that all cases will be dealt with and arrears dating back to 17th January will be paid.

Mr. Willink: While precise information is not available it is estimated that about 100,000 determinations will have been reviewed in respect of week commencing 17th January. In rather more than 90 per cent. of such cases the review will result in some increase in the supplementary pension. The work of reviewing existing cases, which number over 1,250,000 will, it is expected, be completed by the end of March. Where the new Regulations result in an increase the increase will not take effect retrospectively but as from the date of reassessment.

Mr. Tinker: If the staff is not big enough to deal with cases immediately, should not these genuine cases be dealt with in accordance with what the House of Commons desired at the time?

Mr. Willink: It is in accordance with the practice of earlier changes and no point was raised on the matter in the Debate.

Mr. Tinker: On this point, the House of Commons has been misled and I want to give notice that I shall raise the matter again, so that the House of Commons can decide what should be done to meet genuine and hard cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — BIRTH CERTIFICATES (FORM)

Sir William Davison: asked the Minister of Health whether the Government have now given further consideration to the question of the form of the birth certificate; and will steps be taken to provide for the issue of a certificate giving only the necessary dates and without additional information as to legitimacy or illegitimacy.

Mr. Willink: I have some sympathy with the view that a certified copy of a birth entry, for the issue of which alone the Births and Deaths Registration Acts provide, is in some respects unsuitable in cases in which the sole purpose is proof of age. The only satisfactory alternative appears to be the inclusion of the date of birth in a bearer document serving also as evidence of the holder's identity. Such a solution would, however, depend upon a number of other considerations; and no decision on the subject can at present be reached.

Sir W. Davison: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise the great unhappiness and humiliation unnecessarily caused to large numbers of boys and girls applying for appointments who have to produce a birth certificate which discloses the fact that they are illegitimate when people were not aware of it? As this is a matter of great urgency, and, in view of his sympathy, will he do something as soon as possible?

Mr. Willink: I have expressed my sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view, but this is a complicated matter

connected with the whole future of the National Register and therefore I cannot say anything further at present.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Will the Minister receive a deputation on the matter?

Mr. Willink: I will certainly consider that.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHOSEN CORPORATION (USE OF DIPLOMATIC BAG)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the duplicate proxies recently sent from New York to London by diplomatic bag were accompanied by any covering letter or other communication from Mr. Serge Rubinstein or any other private citizen; and if such communication was passed through the censorship.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative; the second part does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Driberg: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this incident is likely to be a precedent?

Sir J. Anderson: I should say, certainly not.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

1914–18 War Dependants (Taxation)

Sir Charles Edwards: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider making up the income of dependants of men who lost their lives in the Great War to what it was when the pension was put on; if he is aware that widows of officers receive from £50 to £100 per annum less because of higher taxation; and whether, seeing the cost of living is so much higher, he will give some consideration to this.

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. The rates of pension payable to widows and dependants of members of the Forces killed in the Great War were fixed in relation to a cost of living index figure higher than that now prevailing. I could not contemplate increasing such rates for the purpose of offsetting the effect of the increased taxation required for the prosecution of the present war.

Five Per Cent. Conversion Loan (Repayment)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any announcement to make in connection with the five per cent. Conversion Loan amounting to £318,000,000, having regard to the forthcoming option for repayment.

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government propose to repay this Loan on 1st May, 1944, and the prescribed notice will appear in the "London Gazette" to-morrow. Having regard to the war loans available for public subscription, I have seen no need to make any special conversion offer in connection with this repayment; but I should like to say how important it is, in the national interest, that the maximum amount of the repayment moneys should be promptly reinvested in the war loans currently on issue.

R.A.F. Personnel, India (Income Tax)

Mr. Tinker: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the position in relation to payment of Income Tax by an airman in the Royal Air Force serving in India and receiving his pay from the India Command; and is it deducted or paid in India or in this country.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ralph Assheton): An airman serving in the Royal Air Force in India whose pay is disbursed by the Indian Government is subject to Indian Income Tax, deductions being made by the Government of India under the India Tax Code.

Mr. Tinker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have had brought to my notice a case in which deduction has been made in this country? An application has been made by the wife to get her husband's money back but she cannot get it. If I send particulars to the right hon. Gentleman will he look into the matter?

Mr. Assheton: I shall be very glad to look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — FAMILY ALLOWANCES

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether it has yet been decided that children's allowances are to be paid direct to the mother.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister without Portfolio when the Government propose to make an announcement about their family allowances scheme; and whether it is likely to come into operation before the raising of the school-leaving age to 15.

The Minister without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt): I must ask my hon. Friends to await the publication of the promised White Paper.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: In view of the great interest shown in the question of those to whom allowances should be paid, will my right hon. and learned Friend expedite a decision on this matter?

Sir W. Jowitt: The matter will be dealt with in the White Paper.

Mr. Parker: Is the Minister aware that if you are to raise the school-leaving age, it will cost families a great deal more to keep their children until they go to work? Is it not essential that something should be done to ease that position?

Sir W. Jowitt: I quite agree that that is a relevant point.

Mr. Stephen: Is the Minister waiting until the children are old enough to receive the old age pension?

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is just 12 months since the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that family allowances would be provided? How long must we wait?

Sir W. Jowitt: We hope that the White Paper will be ready about the end of February.

Miss Rathbone: Is the Minister aware that payment to the mother is almost universally recommended by experts and that all experience of Dominion and foreign schemes points to the fact that the money not only helps to raise the status of the mother but also helps to safeguard her and her children?

Sir W. Jowitt: I appreciate that point but I advise my hon. Friend to wait until publication of the White Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Clothing Sales (Prosecution, Salford)

Mr. Thorne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give any


information in connection with the charge made against Annie Morris and others that came before the Salford police court of selling clothing without a coupon; if he is aware of similar sales of clothing without coupons in munition works; and what action he intends taking to prevent this illegal trade.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): Proceedings in the case to which my hon. Friend refers were taken by the police. Annie Morris and two other women were charged with three offences against the Consumer Rationing Order and were fined sums amounting in the aggregate to £40. Sales of clothing without coupons in munition works are the subject of constant attention by my officers; inquiries are made whenever there is reason to suspect offences of this kind, and wherever possible proceedings are taken.

Matches and Pipe-cleaners

Mr. Kirby: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will increase the supply of matches and pipe-cleaners for retail sale to the public.

Captain Waterhouse: No, Sir. Matches are being made in this country up to the limits of the capacity available and imports would not be justifiable, and there are ample supplies of utility lighters. Materials for making pipe-cleaners, not required for more important uses, have been released from time to time.

Oral Answers to Questions — STERLING PURCHASE, NEW YORK

Mr. W. A. Robinson: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that a senior official in the Postal and Telegraph Censorship Department has recently bought sterling in New York contrary to the nation's interest; what steps, legal, disciplinary, or otherwise, he proposes to take in regard to this matter and to prevent this civil servant and others from taking such action in future?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): No, Sir. But if my hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars I will look into the matter.

Mr. Robinson: Apart from imparting information does not the hon. Gentleman's Department try to collect it? I have the information which he ought to have and if I supply it, will he act on the lines suggested in my Question?

Mr. Thurtle: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the fact that it is impossible for me to make an inquiry into any given matter until I know the matter to which he is referring.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL RATIONING (PROSECUTION, LAMBETH)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he can give any information in connection with the charge made against Neil Edward Kynes and Thomas Cowan, at the Lambeth police court on 18th January, with hiding under a settee coupons representing 200,000 gallons of petrol for which they expected to get about £1,200 and with stealing a rubber stamp; and what action does he intend taking about the matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): I regret that I can make no statement about the charges against Kynes and Cowan, since the case is still sub-judice. My Ministry keep the arrangements for the security of fuel coupons under constant review, but I am sure my hon. Friend will understand that it would be contrary to the public interest to publish the details of our plans.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINA AND AXIS POWERS (RUPTURE OF RELATIONS)

Sir Malcolm Robertson: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any statement to make on the rupture of relations between Argentina and the Axis Powers.

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. The House will recall that; on 27th September, 1943, His Majesty's Government publicly announced their disappointment that successive Argentine Governments should have maintained a policy of neutrality which left Axis nationals free to conspire on Argentine soil against the interests and security of the United Nations. In their reply the Argentine Government reciprocated our desire for friendship, but denied


that it was still the case that harm might come to the security and interests of the United Nations from action organised from Argentine territory. The Argentine Government added that should, nevertheless, any incident occur, punishment would be swift and inexorable, and they reaffirmed their determination to work for closer relations with this country.
Some little time later, His Majesty's Government decided, on the basis of information in their possession, to detain the Argentine national Helmuth on his way from Argentina to Europe. The information which, as a result, we were subsequently in a position to furnish to the Argentine Government, led to the latter's decision, made public on 22nd January, to hold an investigation into the existence of an enemy espionage organisation on Argentine territory. The announcement also stated that a number of persons had already been detained, and that appropriate sanctions would be applied against those responsible, in order to put an end to all activity contrary to the international policy of the Argentine nation.
On 26th January, the Argentine Foreign Minister announced that his Government had decided to break off relations with Germany and Japan.
His Majesty's Government welcome the news that Argentina has, as they have always desired, at last abandoned her neutrality.
They confidently expect that the formal act of rupture will be followed by immediate and effective action against the whole spy organisation, and that not only will German and Japanese officials and those of other enemy or enemy associated countries be expelled from Argentina as soon as possible, but that steps will also be taken to put an end to all undesirable enemy activity on Argentine soil. It is by such action that the Argentine Government can most effectively and quickly dispel the anxiety inspired by a number of recent developments in that country, which I need not further specify.
I may mention that we have already told the Argentine Government, in reply to a request from them, that we shall be glad to help them in their investigations. I must add that His Majesty's Government have been in the closest touch throughout with the Government of the

United States of America, and that the exchange of information and views between our two Governments has been of the fullest, frankest, and most cordial nature.

Mr. Lipson: Are there any other Governments in South America which have not broken off relations with the Axis?

Mr. Eden: No, I think not.

Sir Alfred Beit: Will the Foreign Secretary say whether it is proposed to return Consul Helmuth to the Argentine?

Mr. Eden: I should like to have a little notice of that Question.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Is it not the case that, in a number of other South American Republics, this infiltration has been going on over a number of years, and that most of the Republics in South America published the details of the Nazi conspiracy, particularly in Brazil and in Peru; and will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries from the Governments of these two Republics, particularly, and from Colombia as well, as to what has been going on and what those Governments have found out?

Mr. Eden: As I have said, our information—and events show that it is good information—did lead us to believe that the Axis embassies in Buenos Aires were the centre of this espionage activity. I am sure that judgment was correct.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the Business for the next series of Sittings?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. The Business will be as follows:
First and Second Sitting Days—The promised Debate on Electoral Reform will take place. It will arise on the Motion, which stands on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Ministers.

[That this House welcomes the proposal of His Majesty's Government to set up a Conference on Electoral Reform and Redistribution of Seats and to invite Mr. Speaker to preside.]

Third Sitting Day—Second Reading of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment


Bill and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution. If there is time, the Second Reading of the Naval Forces (Extension of Service) Bill [Lords].

Fourth Sitting Day—Committee and remaining stages of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill, and Report and Third Reading of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Bill, and if there is time, further progress will be made with the Landlord and Tenant (Requisitioned Land) Bill [Lords] and the Guardianship (Refugee Children) Bill [Lords].

Mr. Maxton: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and the Patronage Secretary on the very attractive jumble sale which they have arranged for the Fourth Sitting Day?

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, at a very early date, the Government will arrange to have a Debate on foreign affairs? I think he will probably be aware that there is a fairly widespread demand that a day should be given to a general Debate on foreign affairs, and I would ask the Government to consider whether that could be arranged.

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. Of course, we had two days on foreign affairs before the House rose for Christmas and, as the Prime Minister said the other day, he himself is going to make a statement on the war and on the international situation. When that statement is made—I cannot give an exact day, because it depends on other events—it will be in a wide form, to enable the House to debate the war and foreign affairs together. That, in my judgment, is the right way, because they are so closely linked.

Mr. Granville: If the right hon. Gentleman is hard up for subjects in future, for the Fourth Sitting Day, will he consider giving some time to a discussion of the problem of agriculture?

Mr. Eden: I can assure the hon. Member I am not hard up for subjects. The difficulty is to get the Business through, as he will find as the Session progresses.

Mr. W. J. Brown: When may we expect from the Government the Bill relating to the pensions of retired State servants?

Mr. Eden: I am afraid I cannot give a date.

Mr. Brown: May I ask the Leader of the House to remember that, while art is long, life is short, and some of the people we are talking about, are in process of dying while waiting for the Bill?

Mr. Eden: If the hon. Member will give notice of that, I will look into the matter.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the very critical coal situation, could it not be arranged for the Prime Minister to make a statement on coal, to overcome the very bad effect of his recent sunshine speech?

Mr. Eden: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's diagnosis of my right hon. Friend's speech.

Mr. Parker: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an indication of when the Committee stage of the Education Bill will be taken?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I hope in the series of Sittings after next.

Mr. Buchanan: May I ask two questions, one of them on coal? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in parts of the industrial community, the distribution of coal is causing great hardship amongst very poor people, and will he not look into that situation? The second concerns a report issued by Sir John Boyd Orr showing the terrible death-rate in Scotland—the highest, almost, of all European countries. Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Secretary of State for Scotland on these terrible figures and agree to a discussion of this Report, which affects a far wider area than Scotland?

Mr. Eden: So far as arrangements for a discussion of these matters are concerned, I should have thought that the point raised in the second part of the Question could well be taken on one day on the Vote of the Ministry of Health, but I will look into that and also into the other point made by the hon. Member.

Mr. Buchanan: May I impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that there are statements in this report that are appalling? It shows a terrible state of things in parts of Britain, and it is not a purely Scottish issue. This is becoming a first-class issue affecting the country as a whole.

Mr. Eden: I shall have to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland about it.

BILL PRESENTED

HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL,

"to continue the House of Common's Disqualification (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1941;" presented by Mr. Attlee, supported by Mr. Eden, Sir Archibald Sinclair and the Attorney-General; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 8.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That the Proceedings on the Disabled Persons (Employment) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Eden.]

Orders of the Day — DISABLED PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 18th January]

[Major MILNER in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 7.—(Entry of names of disabled persons in the register.)

Amendment proposed [18th January], in page 3, line 19, to leave out from "prescribing," to the first "the," in line 21, and to insert "the manner in which".—[Major Lloyd.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): In the light of the discussion which took place previously, on the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd), perhaps the Amendment that has been put down since by the Minister, to Clause 7, page 3, line 22, will meet the position, and, if it is agreeable to the Committee, I would be prepared to move that Amendment in substitution for the one we were discussing when the Committee adjourned.

Major Lloyd: Apart from the Amendment which my hon. Friend has asked permission to move, and the Amendment under discussion, you will notice, Major Milner, that there is also an Amendment to the Minister's Amendment. May we be allowed to discuss the Amendment to the Minister's Amendment, at the same time?

Major Milner: Do I understand that the hon. and gallant Member asks leave to withdraw his Amendment?

Major Lloyd: I have not done so yet. I preferred to ask your guidance, Major Milner. In the circumstances, I appre-

ciate the fact that the Minister has endeavoured to meet the point of view which we tried to put forward last week. The object of our Amendment was to emasculate as far as possible the overwhelming powers which the Minister was taking under the first part of Clause 7. We did not feel that we could tolerate them. I realise that my right hon. Friend has been conciliatory to a very large extent, has at any rate met our extreme point of view, and we in turn have realised, as a result of the discussion last week, that the Minister must have some powers of regulation. As to the methods to be adopted in exercising those powers, discussion will arise later in the Bill, and important Amendments on that point are on the Order Paper. In view of the fact that the Minister has put down this Amendment, which will again raise a discussion on whether it will sufficiently limit his powers or does still give him too many powers, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lionel Berry: I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, after "any," to insert "disabled."
The point of this Amendment concerns the powers of the Minister. It seems to me that not only might he make regulations which affect disabled persons but also regulations for people who are not disabled. The marginal heading at the side of the Clause includes the word "disabled," and I suggest that it might as well be included in the Clause itself. It is a point of drafting and does not require any emphasis from me, but I feel that the word should be included.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I hope that I shall be able to satisfy my hon. Friend that the inclusion of this word is unnecessary. By Clause 6 the register is confined to a register of disabled persons, and therefore to include this word would be Unnecessary. It is always a pity to put in unnecessary words, because people wonder why they have been inserted.

Mr. Berry: In view of that very satisfactory explanation I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Tomlinson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, at the end, to insert:


The matters which may be prescribed under this subsection shall be such as must in the opinion of the Minister be so prescribed in order to secure that the fact that a person's name is in the register will afford reasonable assurance of his being a person capable of entering into and keeping employment, or of undertaking work on his own account, under the conditions under which in accordance with the provisions of this Act employment may be offered to him or such work may be available for him and the said matters shall, without prejudice to the generality of this provision, include—

(a) the fact that a person is under a prescribed age;
(b) unreasonable refusal of failure to attend a vocational training or industrial rehabilitation course;
(c) except in the case of a person who has served whole-time in the armed forces of the Crown, in the merchant navy or the mercantile marine, or in any of the capacities mentioned in the Schedule (Women's Services) to this Act, the fact that a person is not ordinarily resident in Great Britain;
(d) habitual bad character."

The discussion on this subject on the last occasion showed, and with some justification, complaints as to the width of the powers given to the Minister under this Clause, and this Amendment has been put down in order to restrict those powers, or restrict the exercise of them to the directions in which everybody felt it was right and proper that they should be exercised. Therefore, I think the four paragraphs in the Amendment setting out the matters which may be prescribed will find favour with the Committee. I do not think we need argue them in detail, to go into a long discussion, for instance, on what is or is not "habitual bad character." We might spend the rest of the day discussing that without advantage either to ourselves or the character concerned. All will agree, I think, that if he cannot be defined at least he can be picked out, and that having been picked out he would not be a person whom we should desire to have on a register and submitted continuously to an employer as a person who, under a compulsory quota, should be taken into employment. If a person is under a prescribed age—well, I think there need be more argument about him than about the habitual character. Paragraph (b) deals with
unreasonable refusal or failure to attend a vocational training or industrial rehabilitation course.

Obviously if an individual wants to take advantage of a register to obtain employment he must take the necessary steps to qualify himself to carry out the duties he will be expected to do when his name is submitted for employment. The third heading, which might give rise to some discussion, concerns service people who are not ordinarily resident in Great Britain. That would meet what I would call an "inverse cat and mouse procedure," the case of persons slipping over to this country and obtaining advantages of this kind without being desirous of living in the country. It is not aimed at the aliens referred to in our last discussion, but aimed at preventing a situation which might arise because of our close proximity to other countries from which it would be easy to slip in and obtain advantages and then slip out whenever it suited a person's convenience.

Mr. Bowles: What is the prescribed age?

Mr. Tomlinson: The school-leaving age, or the age at which employment was permissible.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Gentleman has not made it clear whether this Amendment deals with a point which was raised by myself and another hon. Member with respect to Clause 20, Sub-section (3). If it does not I take it we shall have an opportunity later of discussing the point on that Amendment.

Mr. Tomlinson: No, it is not intended to deal with that point.

Major Lloyd: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from "as" in line 1 to "to" in line 2.
I realise that the Minister thought his Amendment would meet the points which I and many other hon. Members made last week, and the Parliamentary Secretary has expressed the belief that it will find favour with the Committee, but I am afraid he is over optimistic. We feel that the Amendment does not meet the point which we tried to rub in but, possibly, did not make clear enough. It is true that the Minister's powers are to be limited, and his Amendment is satisfactory to that extent. The original powers, which were carte blanche, have


been to some degree limited. Surely this particular Amendment is, in fact, an explanatory Clause trying to define what is meant. The examples (a), (b), (c) and (d) are merely examples, of which doubtless there will be others, of exceptional cases which would disqualify. I daresay hon. Members will not disagree that these cases should naturally be disqualified, but they are, in fact, explanatory examples.
The Minister's powers still remain, in suggest, very strong indeed, especially in line 2 where we have the words:
The matters which may be prescribed under this Sub-section shall be such as must in the opinion of the Minister be so prescribed …
I have put down an Amendment, and some of my hon. Friends have supported it, to omit
must in the opinion of the Minister be so prescribed.
There, I suggest, is the real meat of the Amendment. The Minister is still all-powerful. He has told us in the Amendment that there will be certain disqualifications, and we certainly know more than we did when the Bill was first drafted. To that extent it is satisfactory, but it seems to me that as long as the words "in the opinion of the Minister" remain the Minister is all-powerful and can make whatever decision he likes. There is no appeal to the courts, as I see it. Possibly, the Minister may allow his advisory tribunals or councils to be consulted, but even there, under the Bill, the Minister is all-powerful, and can, if he likes, ignore even the advisory council. So long as we have this expression "in the opinion of the Minister," which runs through the whole Bill, until we come to the all-powerful powers which are given under Clause 19, I cannot feel that the Amendment is sufficiently satisfactory.
I do appreciate the Minister's conciliatory attitude in the matter, but I would ask him seriously to consider whether he will not accept my Amendment to omit "in the opinion of the Minister." The rest of the Amendment simply gives examples of decisions that the Minister might make. The Minister has complete powers of decision and nobody can appeal against them. The courts have no say whatever. It is on that point but in complete support of the

whole principle of the Bill that we are venturing to dispute the wording of the Clause.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I sincerely trust that my hon. Friends will not pursue this point. I have given my hon. Friends support on the other Amendments which they proposed, but this one raises questions of constitutional principle which really cannot be supported. It is a peculiar attitude. Modern life makes the administration of the country so complicated that delegated legislation is necessary and desirable. Some years ago the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Hewart, complained of it, drawing attention to the new constitutional principles which it involved, and since then, from time to time, Amendments of this character have been put forward. Each time they have been put forward as a novel point to be raised, but each time the same wording crops up, and it is, I submit to the Committee, time that we recognised that the form is a bad one. Nobody, I think, likes delegated legislation for its own sake, but if we are to have it at all we must lay down certain constitutional principles. I think we all recognise that we have got to have it in some form or other.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is the hon. Member referring to the war or afterwards?

Mr. Hogg: If my hon. and gallant Friend will go to the Library and look at the Statutory Rules and Orders he will see what I am referring to.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: Lord Chief Justice Hewart was responsible for drafting some of them when he was in this House.

Mr. Hogg: I think we had better leave that distinguished lawyer and pursue the point. To my mind the important facts to recognise are these. First of all, if we are to have delegated legislation, it must be legislation. The character which is essential to legislation is that the courts should not question the policy behind it. We should determine policy in this House. Let us pursue what would be the consequence of passing an Amendment of this character. The matters which may be prescribed, says the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment under this Subsection, shall be such


as must in the opinion of the Minister be so prescribed in order to secure that the fact that a person's name is in the register will afford reasonable assurance,
and so on. The object of the Amendment is to take out the words "in the opinion of the Minister" and that means that the courts would be able to question the policy lying behind the prescription of the Regulations. The courts would be clogged up with persons who dislike the Regulations in some form or another, and questions would be raised by some persons not as to the meaning of the Regulations but whether the Minister was right or wrong in issuing Regulations, and whether they were necessary. That is a question for this House and not for the courts. It is the same with all these problems. Policy must be kept for this House and out of the courts. It is a totally false view to which, I am sorry to say, currency was given by the late Lord Chief Justice, that policy was a proper matter for the courts and not for this House. That is a false view of the constitution of this country. The effect of passing Amendments of this character, would be destructive of the power of the Minister to prescribe policy. That would be to erect the courts into a sort of Supreme Court of the United States, which is not their proper function in this country.
I want to add the following as a word of warning. I am perfectly sure that the courts would be the first to object to this practice. The judges do not want to go into questions of policy. It would only be necessary for them to have experience of trying to interfere with administration on a large scale for the whole administration of justice under delegated administration to become impossible. Therefore, I sincerely hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not press his Amendment and I ask the Minister to resist it.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Before the hon. Member sits down I would like to ask him whether he is stating that the judges take exception to this? I was talking to one judge this morning, and he said that one of the evils was that there was no appeal to the courts.

Mr. Hogg: I think it would be very unsatisfactory to enter into the individual opinions of men who hold official office. I say that experience of that sort would make them the greatest opponents of it,

and, whoever they were, whether barristers, solicitors or anyone connected with the administration of justice, they would turn against Amendments of this kind.

Mr. Bellenger: I do not think that what hon. members have done in forcing the Minister to make the definitions as he has done in (a), (b), (c) and (d) is going to carry us much further. The Bill is largely in the nature of a useful experiment, of which the Minister and his Department have only a limited knowledge so far. After all, rehabilitation has only been introduced in a very limited way during the war. Therefore, the Minister has made provision that he shall be advised by a Central Advisory Council and by district committees. If the Minister and his Department, in working the Bill when it becomes an Act, utilise those organisations fully and those organisations are really representative of all the different interests, I believe we can safely leave it to the Minister to make the Regulations. We have to take a certain amount on trust. It does not apply only to this Bill. It looks to me as if the trend of the social legislation that the House is passing will make it inevitable that a certain amount will have to be left to the Minister, or organisations set up by the Minister, and this House will have to take a good deal on trust. I am prepared, with the guarantee of the Central Advisory Council and the district committees, to place my trust in the Minister and his Department and I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment and let us get on to issues which will deal much more closely with principle.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: You are not trusting a particular Minister. You are trusting this Minister and his successors.

Mr. Bellenger: I am prepared to take the risk.

Sir Percy Harris: I entirely agree that this power must be vested in the Minister, but it would be an unfortunate interpretation to suggest that the late Lord Chief Justice was asking merely that powers should be vested in the courts. On the contrary, what is wanted, what the House wants and what my hon. Friend wants, is that, where practicable, these powers should be defined in the Bill. I think it would be unfortunate if the impression got about


that we were departing from the general tradition of the House and that we wanted to vest powers in the Minister except where it was absolutely necessary, but we want to go on pressing that wherever possible those powers should be defined, either in the Clause or in the Schedule.

Major Manningham-Buller: I welcome the Minister's Amendment, because it clarifies the purpose for which Regulations can be made without limiting the power to make such Regulations as may be necessary. I think it is necessary that the Minister should have wide powers to make Regulations to carry the Bill into effect. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford City (Mr. Hogg) seemed to me to misconceive entirely the purpose, object and effect of my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment. In my view its effect would not be in the least to cast upon the Courts the duty of considering questions of policy or anything of that sort. The only effect would be that it would be for the court to say, if the validity of a Regulation was challenged, whether or not the particular Regulation was within the powers delegated to the Minister by Parliament. They would not consider any question of policy. They would merely have to consider whether the Regulation was intra vires or ultra vires.

Mr. Hogg: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend agree that the effect of passing the Amendment would be that, in order to ascertain whether the Regulation was ultra vires or intra vires, the court would have to enter into the question whether the fact that a person's name is in the Register would afford reasonable assurance of certain things? Would not the courts have to enter into that question and, if so, is not that essentially a question of policy?

Major Manningham-Buller: No doubt the Attorney-General will deal specifically with that point but, as far as I can see, what the courts would be concerned with is not a question of policy but the validity of the Regulation. The effect of the Minister's Amendment is to remove from the court the power of testing the validity of Regulations. If someone sought to challenge a Regulation, all that the court would be concerned with is whether or not the Minister had expressed the opinion that it was necessary. If he had, that would be an end of the matter. My hon.

and gallant Friend's Amendment does not seek in any shape or form to embarrass or to attack the Minister, but merely to preserve the power of the court to see that delegated legislation is not in fact exceeded.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has argued the legal position with his usual skill and lucidity and I think he and others have put their fingers on what is the real trouble. It is true that the tendency in legislation at present is to give the Minister unlimited powers, and it is true that the proper place to argue policy is here and not in the courts. What my hon. and gallant Friend seeks to do is to preserve to the individual some right to go to the courts to ascertain whether the Minister has used his powers properly. I cannot see that it is wrong for hon. Members to try to stop the present tendency to give unlimited and not very clearly defined power to the Minister. It may be right that the Minister should have very wide powers indeed. In this Bill he must have them, but I think we should preserve, for the individual who will be affected by the Bill, some right to go to the court and ascertain whether the Minister's powers have been properly exercised. As I see it, that is all that the Amendment seeks to do.

Mr. Messer: I cannot see this being workable unless we have an instrument which will give a decision. It has either to be the Minister or someone else. If it is the Minister, both the person concerned and this House must have a safeguard. We can always question what the Minister does, but once the matter goes to the Court it is decided once and for all. I am concerned to see, in all matters where we delegate to the Minister immense power, that the House itself should be in a position to call into question any action the Minister takes. If we in the Bill are going to provide some other means of making a decision, we shall lose the power that we now possess.

The Attorney-General: On this matter my legal home is at Oxford and not at Daventry. May I begin by reminding the Committee quite shortly of what happened in the other discussion and the purpose for which my right hon. Friend put down this Amendment. The Bill, as originally drafted, contained words which seemed to give the widest powers, irrespective of any


signposts or guideposts and there seemed to be no limit, as to whom the Minister might or might not disqualify. It was in response to expressions of opinion of that kind that my right hon. Friend put down this Amendment, which makes it clear that the Regulations are to be restricted. The matters are those which, in the opinion of the Minister, are designed to secure that his being on the Register gives a reasonable assurance of the man being capable of entering into and keeping work. My hon. and gallant Friend thinks that this matter ought to be taken to the court. I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) who, though he was not allowed to go too wide, did put before the Committee a real principle which makes this an inappropriate matter for the court for a constitutional reason. I will not repeat what he said, because he stated it extremely clearly, and I think all Members of the Committee have it in mind. I would only like to add one other reason, which is also important, though it is not so much constitutional as practical. The Minister, in considering whether some particular provision should be made imposing a condition, or excluding people, and so on, within the general limits of this Clause, so as to see that the Register is a real Register of people capable and ready to take employment, will, of course, act on a vast mass of information which he will get from all sorts of sources, some coming through his Department, some possibly from personal investigation by himself. If there are any points of difficulty arising his decision will be reached after getting the facts from all sources—expert opinion and from people who have had the practical working of the scheme. He then decides that this is designed to secure that the fact of a person being on the Register will give "reasonable assurance," etc. That is a question of policy—it must be—and if you are going to give resort to the Courts, the Courts would have to decide whether this particular provision was such as to secure that the fact of the man's name being on the Register gave a reasonable assurance. The material which must necessarily be considered to come to that conclusion is a mass of stuff which the Minister has got from all sources, and if you take this type of case to the Court you will have to contemplate putting before them all the

variety of facts and expert opinion and material which the Minister will probably have before him in coming to his conclusion. It is really outside practical politics altogether. For those reasons I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend who has raised this point, and who has had a partial victory, will see his way not to press this Amendment and will realise that there is a considerable amount of opinion, supported on other issues, which is against him. I hope, therefore, that he will see his way to withdraw his Amendment so that we can get on to other matters.

Major Lloyd: I have no apologies to make for having raised the point, because it is very important, and it is just as well that it should have been completely clarified. I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for his explanation and, under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That these words be there inserted".

Mr. Turton: Before we leave this Amendment may I thank the Minister for having concluded the case of the catburglar which I have raised before. Having said that word of thanks I would ask one other question which was really implied in my question to the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: Is this in Order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is speaking on the Amendment proper.

Mt. Turton: The other point I wished to raise deals with paragraph (c). If, as the Parliamentary Secretary says, it does not cover the question arising on Clause 20 of aliens being included in this Bill, we shall get the extraordinary position of a man who fought against us and was disabled enjoying the provisions of this Bill. I hope the Government will reconsider this matter on the Report stage, when they see what has happened on Clause 20. At the moment it looks very contradictory that here in paragraph (c) you are giving the Minister power to exclude persons who are not ordinarily resident in Great Britain, except people who have served in His Majesty's Forces, and then in Clause 20, Sub-section (3) you are saying that this Act shall apply


to aliens. I hope, therefore, that if the Minister will not cut out Sub-section (3) of Clause 20 he will further amend this Amendment on the Report stage.

Mr. Bellenger: On that point, surely the hon. Gentleman does not wish to exclude enemy aliens serving in the Pioneer Corps and other regiments of this country? Of course, it may be conceivable that a man will come up for registration who has been fighting against us, but is not the safeguard in the Regulations Which the Minister will still be able to prescribe under this Clause?

Mr. Turton: That is the point. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary whether para. (c) was designed to cover cases included in Clause 20, Sub-section (3), and he said, no. For that reason I suggest that on the Report stage it will be desirable to include those cases. I heartily agree with my hon. Friend opposite that aliens serving with His Majesty's Forces in the Pioneer, or any other Corps should be included in all the provisions and the benefits of this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Douglas: I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, after "register," to insert:
or an employer of any person entitled to have his name entered in the register.
The object of this Amendment is to try to secure that the Register shall be as complete as possible. The consequences of entry upon the Register are very important, because they determine how many people in total will be upon the Register, and therefore they will determine what the quota is which employers will be obliged to employ. More than that, entry upon the Register gives to the person so registered a safeguard against dismissal by his employer, and a priority of employment by other employers if, for some reason he should lose his employment, because a registered person is given a preference and priority in employment. A common experience is that where people are required to register they do not do so. In this instance, there may be many disabled persons who will not feel any incentive to register, especially where it is the practice of employers to engage persons, who have become disabled in their service, in some suitable employment. Notably is this the case with local authorities, where employment

is regarded by the workmen as having a high degree of security and certainty and it is likely that many people in that position will not take the trouble to enter their names upon the register.
The purpose of the Amendment is to enable the employer to make application to have the name of a disabled person entered upon the register. That will be for the protection of the disabled person himself. It will prevent the employer dismissing him without reason and will give him a priority of employment if, for some unforeseen reason, he ceases to be employed. It is for the protection of the employer because only registered persons are calculated in the quota which the employer is bound to employ. If the employer is employing people who are disabled and who have not registered themselves, he will be obliged to employ a larger number of disabled persons because his quota will only be calculated on those who are registered. Therefore, the employer who has been in the habit of treating his work-people in this fashion and giving them continued employment in some other capacity when they become disabled, ought not to be penalised by being obliged to employ a larger number. The consequence might be that if the quota were high he would be driven to discharge some of those who were already in his employment and were disabled but who were not registered.

Mr. Tomlinson: The Amendment cannot be accepted, for a good and sufficient reason. One of the arguments against the compulsory registration which has had some weight with me, and the only argument which has disturbed me at all, is that if a disabled person had overcome his disability and rehabilitated himself in employment and was then compelled to register, it would have a psychological effect on him which it would be unwise from a medical point of view to impose. Even if the principle were accepted, the Amendment could not be accepted as it is, because no person is entitled to have his name entered on the register. A person is entitled to apply for his name to be entered, but he has to meet qualifying conditions. If this right were granted in the cases suggested by my hon. Friend and on the other hand a man was not compelled to register because of the psychological effect of compelling him, then it would hand to the employer something


which we are not giving to the man himself. It is within the rights of the employer to convince a disabled man who, he feels, should be on the register, to make application, and I cannot think that a local authority would find difficulty in persuading a man who was so disabled that he could qualify to come on to the register. It would be a dangerous principle if we invited employers, whether local authorities or otherwise, to make applications for individuals who had overcome their disability and were no longer handicapped from obtaining and retaining employment. I hope that the hon. Member will see the wisdom of withdrawing the Amendment because of the detrimental effect upon the individuals we are seeking to help.

Mr. Douglas: I want to repudiate strongly that there is any idea in the Amendment of doing injury to a disabled person. The Minister is taking powers under this Bill to make regulations as to the manner in which people shall be entered upon the register. In those powers I have not the slightest doubt that he will make sure that no person is entered on the register if it would be detrimental to his health or prospects or otherwise be injurious to him. If he does not take those steps, what is the use of the powers which he is taking? I strongly object to the way in which this argument has been presented. I admit that the Amendment is defective in its drafting because the words ought to be "any person entitled to apply to have his name entered on the register." I accept the correction on the technical point, but I would ask the Minister once more to look at the substance of the case which I have put forward.

Mr. Messer: I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas) really sees the full implications of his Amendment. It means that somebody who is in ordinary employment and who can be classified as disabled will have his name put on the register without his consent.

Mr. Douglas: No.

Mr. Messer: As the Amendment reads, the employer could apply for the name of a member of his staff to be put on the register. There is nothing to provide that the man should object. One realises that

there are a large number of employers who are prepared to take injured workmen back and that over a period of time they will attain a degree of skill which enables them to regard themselves as no longer disabled. I can see the possibility, to make the Bill workable, that it may be necessary to have an adjustment of wages so that disablement would justify an arrangement that a workman should get less wages than the recognised standard rate. The implications of the present proposals are too wide, the first principle being that no person ought to be put on the register unless he himself applies for it to be done.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: There seems to be another defect in the Amendment. It would force an employer to make application for a person's name to be entered on the register whether that person desired it or not. I do not think that would really carry out what the hon. Gentleman wishes to do.

Amendment negatived.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 3, line 35, to leave out from beginning, to "shall," in line 36, and to insert "in any other case the Minister."
This and a later Amendment in line 38 are clarifying Amendments which make it clear that if the Minister refuses in the first instance an application to go on the register, it must go to the advisory committee. This is not clear on the original drafting and these Amendments put it right.

Major-Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. Will this Amendment exclude consideration of the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb), in page 3, line 35, leave out paragraph (b), and insert:
(b) A person who desires his name to be entered in the register and is aggrieved by the Minister's determination, shall have a right of appeal to a pensions appeal tribunal on the issue whether his claim was rightly rejected by the Minister and the decision of the tribunal shall be final and conclusive as to such person's condition and right to be placed on the register at that time.

The Chairman: No, I do not think so.

The Attorney-General: It does not cover quite the same point. Perhaps it ought to be moved first, but that is a matter for you, Major Milner.

The Chairman: I think that the two Amendments might be discussed together.

Major Manningham-Buller: If the Minister's Amendment is carried it will be difficult to insert my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment.

The Chairman: We might take the discussion on the two Amendments together and then see how far they are related.

Captain Cobb: The Amendment in my name is repeated in essence in an Amendment covering the same point in Clause 8, page 5, line 8, at the end, to insert:
(3) Any person aggrieved by the removal of his name from the register shall have a right of appeal to a pensions appeal tribunal on the issues whether he is still a disabled person within the meaning of section one hereof and whether his disablement is likely to continue for six months or more, and if the tribunal determines that he is a disabled person whose disability is likely to continue for such period, his name shall forthwith be reinserted in the register, unless the tribunal also determine that his disability is permanent and such as to render him unsuitable for any employment.
It might be convenient to discuss that Amendment as well.

The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member. It will be convenient to discuss that Amendment also.

Captain Cobb: I am sure that no Member of the Committee needs to be reminded of the continuous agitation which went on about this time last year, and continued for many months, which was aimed at the setting up of appeal tribunals to enable dissatisfied applicants for pensions, whose claims had been rejected by the Minister, to submit their claims to an independent appeal tribunal. Hon. Members who supported that demand came from all sections of the House, and we who have put our names down to these Amendments are entitled to expect support not only from this side, but from the other side of the Committee. The same principle is involved in these Amendments. It the Bill is to be as valuable as we hope it will be, the employment which will become available to disabled men will be every bit as valuable to him as a pension would be to a war disabled man. I go further and say that the ability to obtain employment will be more important to a disabled man than a pension. It is ludicrous to

imagine that the Minister of Labour, whoever he may be, will have the task of giving personal attention to every claim to have a name inserted on the register. The present Minister of Labour, since he has been in office during the last three and a half years, has made his Department one of the most important in the State, and I believe it will continue to be so for many years after the war.
We know that although under the Bill the Minister will decide whether a man's name is to go on the register and whether it is removed, these decisions will, in fact, be made by a Government official. I shall not make any attack on the Civil Service, but we often hear hon. Members say in this House that the country feels this or that, when their claim to speak for the country is very slight; but I believe that I can speak for the country when I say that it is the general opinion among all sections that the sooner we are able to do away with official control and interference with our lives, the better. It is for that reason that I am anxious that such an important decision, affecting the lives and employment of the people concerned, should not be in the hands of an official to decide finally. The person who makes the application should have the right to have his case heard before an independent tribunal. It is often said that you must not only do justice but make people feel that justice has been done, and I believe there will be a real sense of bitterness and grievance among large numbers of the population unless the Minister agrees that a dissatisfied applicant for entry on the register shall have such a right of appeal, and the right to have his case conducted for him by a trade union official or some other friend.

The Chairman: It is now clear that if the Amendment in the name of the Minister is carried, that in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) will fall.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to support my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment. The Bill proposes that if the. Minister refuses to put a name on the register the matter must come before one of these district committees. That only means that it goes there after recommendation and it does not at all alter the real sense of paragraph (b). It leaves the matter entirely to the Minister to be


finally determined. I suggest that there will arise exactly the same dissatisfaction as arose in regard to pensions. If the Amendment is carried, the Minister will be saved a good deal of trouble in the future and great satisfaction will be given to those who have, or feel they have, reason for complaint and who will have some tribunal to which their complaint can be referred.

Major Lloyd: I should have thought that, in the light of the experience of the Minister of Pensions, the Minister would welcome this Amendment. There is no doubt that ex-Servicemen will do so, as they would prefer to have an independent tribunal. I endorse the opinion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) as to what public opinion would desire, and I am surprised that the Minister should not see that he is laying up for himself, quite deliberately, in spite of the experience of other Ministers, infinite trouble, as well as risking a considerable amount of discontent in the country. I trust that he will consider this matter sympathetically and so avoid discontent and agitation in the future, as well as save himself and his Department a great deal of trouble.

Mr. McLean Watson: I hope that the Attorney-General, who will no doubt reply for the Government, will not accept the Amendment, because it would reverse the decision that we recently arrived at with regard to the power of the Minister. It was agreed that the Minister should have very wide powers, but if he unreasonably withholds the entry of a name upon the register the matter can be raised on the Floor of the House in a much more effective way than by reference to a pensions appeal tribunal.

Captain Cobb: I do not agree with the hon. Member. How many of those dissatisfied people would have a chance of their grievance being brought up here? In the case of the Ministry of Pensions, hundreds of cases were never heard.

Mr. Watson: I still maintain that the power of raising such matters here is much more effective than raising it in a pensions appeal tribunal. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member proposes that the present pensions appeal tribunals should deal with these matters, but if so, I am of the opinion that those tribunals

should be confined to the matters with which they are already dealing, which is assessing the disability of ex-Servicemen and awarding the pension that is appropriate to the disability. We should not ask them to undertake a duty of this kind. Surely the Minister can be trusted to deal fairly, especially when he is advised by regional and district councils, always keeping in mind that any unreasonable withholding can be raised in this House. If these matters were decided by an appeal tribunal there would be no appeal at all afterwards, and the matter could not even be raised here. It would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the Minister and keep him answerable for whatever defects we may discover in the operation of this Measure.

The Attorney-General: I am sure that it would be impracticable to put this task on the pensions appeal tribunals, because they already have enough to do, and also because they are not the tribunals, according to their constitution, which would be appropriate for a matter of this kind, assuming that the principle of appeal were accepted. However, having said that, I address myself to the question of principle, which is whether this is a case for an appeal. The supporters of the Amendment said that they expected that the Minister would keep a benevolent eye on these matters and that the Amendment would save him a lot of trouble. That makes fairly clear the point which was made by my hon. Friend who has just spoken, that the setting up of a tribunal to some extent diminishes and encroaches upon the responsibility of a Minister to this House, when he can say: "I have decided that there is a right of appeal, and, the tribunal having dealt with the matter, I have no control over it. You may think it is a hard case, but Parliament has set up a tribunal to have the last word, and that is the end of it. It has nothing to do with me." There is something in that argument.
My hon. Friends say, and until you look at the argument it is attractive: "What about the pensions cases and the great demand on all sides of the House for appeal tribunals there?" There were two points in connection with that matter. First, a great many pensions cases turn on difficult medical questions as to whether a certain condition is attributable to certain causes. On those


matters, as we all know, apart from the appeal tribunals, the Minister has to be guided both in substance and in fact, under the Warrant, by the advice of medical advisers. One of the reasons urged for pension appeal tribunals was that in many cases the reasoning which led to a decision one way or the other was not a thing about which we, as laymen can argue and show that the decision was absurd, on what I may call commonsense grounds. It was a technical question. The Minister would say: "My advisers have gone into this matter and have advised me." There was a strong feeling that these cases should be reviewed by a tribunal with medical members, with power to bring fresh medical opinion and all the rest of it.
So far as I can see, this Clause will not raise that sort of technical medical question. The question whether a man is or is not disabled is pretty simple. No reason for the cause of his disablement will come in. My right hon. Friend does not expect either a demand or a grievance such as my hon. Friends have suggested. He will have the advantage of the advice of his advisory committee. We expect that everybody will take a reasonable and generous view of borderline cases, and my right hon. Friend does not expect that there will be, as I agree there were in the pensions area, a demand likely to arise, as my hon. Friends have suggested. He has provided for this committee and we hope that is the best way to deal with it and that it will work. It does not in law bind him and it would be wrong that it should do so. He must take the responsibility. It is inconceivable that he should disregard a clear opinion come to by the committee that a man's name should be on the Register, but we want to preserve his final responsibility, and not shuffle it off on to an appeal tribunal. We think that is the best way. I am sure that the whole Committee will agree that we do not want to start multiplying procedure in the way of appeal tribunals all over the country unless there are a real demand and a necessity for them.
We believe that the committee system and the responsibility of the Minister to this Iouse will work to the general satisfaction of those affected under this Scheme. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) asked how many cases would be raised in this House. Well, a great many pensions cases were

raised, and all hon. Members were in touch with the British Legion and other bodies and knew of the general opinion there upon many individual cases. I do not think that there is any reason to suppose that, if there is a slip up or a case turned down which ought to be put forward that it will not be taken up by a trade union, or the British Legion or somebody, even if the man himself does not communicate with his Member, and that there will be a chance of the matter being brought to the attention of the Minister. We do not believe that the proposed tribunals will be necessary and I therefore hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not press his Amendment.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I support what the Attorney-General has said. He was quite right in saying that pensions tribunals were not the right bodies for cases of this kind. Fine points very often arise in the tribunals that are difficult to describe and I am sure that these tribunals would be impracticable for that reason. When the Bill talks of disabled people it does not mean, I would point out, only people who have been disabled as a result of the war. It includes the mentally deficient, tubercular people, cripples and people with many forms of disease, and so on, and I think it would be quite impossible for pensions tribunals to have constantly to give attention to cases of that kind. There would have to be a vast system of pensions tribunals in order to cope with the work. Though I have a good deal of sympathy with my hon. and gallant Friend I must support the learned Attorney-General.

Mr. Woodburn: It appears to me that as the thing stands just now it is possible for the Minister, if new circumstances or points are brought to his notice, to change his decision even. If it once goes before a pensions tribunal that tends to give it a finality. I think there is flexibility about the system proposed in the Bill which is worth retaining.

Mr. J. Lawson: The Attorney-General has fallen back upon the Advisory Committee and I think that is very important, because it seems to me that a pensions tribunal is out of the question. The whole of the pensions tribunals would have to be revised. I ask at what stage


would the Minister or my hon. Friend tell the House what is to be the nature of this Advisory Committee, because that is rather important.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): It is in the Schedule.

Mr. Lawson: I mean the representation. That is rather important.

Mr. Tomlinson: The two classes who are definitely assured of places on the Advisory Committee are the employers and the workers, and there will also be others who have been in the different types of organisations for the disabled and people who have come into the administration. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That does not mean officials?"] No.

Captain Cobb: The hon. Member was rather premature in his suggestion that I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I have not yet moved it. In view of the fact that an hon. Member opposite made a suggestion that this Amendment suggested a lack of trust in the Minister I would like to deny that suggestion as strongly as I possibly can. No one has more faith in the Minister than I have or wishes him more good than I do. It is because of my friendly feelings for him that I want to try and save him from being hounded and harried like his right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions. The Attorney-General tells us that my right hon. Friend is quite confident that there will be no fuss over an appeal against his decision to include or exclude from the register. I think that if such a demand should arise my right hon. Friend should have something in the Bill or some means of satisfying the grievance if it should become something of the same scale as that experienced last year about pension appeal tribunals. I do not wish to delay the Committee any longer, and while I will not say that I am completely satisfied with the answer I have had I will not move my proposed Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 38, leave out "that question," and insert "the issue as to which he is not satisfied."—[Mr. Tomlinson].

Major Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. I do not quite know, Mr. Williams, where we have got to. I do

not know whether you are calling the Amendment standing in my name and in the names of other hon. Members in page 3, line 42.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I understood that this Amendment was not very far away from the one we were discussing, though it does involve a separate point. I will call it so that the hon. and gallant Member can explain his suggestion.

Major Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, to leave out:
being a 1914–18 disablement pensioner
and to insert:
in receipt of a disablement pension from the Ministry of Pensions.
I am afraid it is an entirely different point, absolutely removed from the point which has recently been under discussion. It might be convenient if we took all the Amendments to Clause 7 standing in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends and the Amendment to Clause 8, in page 4, line 37, together, because all these Amendments cover the same points. Under the Bill it is specifically approved that the 1914 disablement pensioner shall automatically be placed upon the register, It is also provided under the Bill that everyone else has to contract in. The object of this Amendment is simply to provide that those whose names are recorded in the Ministry of Pensions are handed over straight away to the Ministry of Labour and entered by the Ministry of Labour upon their files, so relieving all the persons entitled to disability pensions as a result of this war from the burden of contracting in. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that no one who is entitled to be registered under this Bill who is disabled in this war shall be excluded through his ignorance of the regulations and ignorance of his rights.
I appreciate that the point may be made against me that many people who are entitled to disability pensions are not disabled within the meaning of this Bill. I appreciate that perfectly well, but I would point out that under a Clause of this Bill the Minister is entitled to remove from the register. What I am in fact urging is that this Amendment should be accepted so that the names will go across in blocks from the Ministry of Pensions, so that the Minister of Labour can go through them, ticking off those who ought not to be on


the register, but inserting all the others, so that one should make quite sure there is not a single man disabled in this war, whether he be civilian or in the Services, who through ignorance of his own position or his rights, or ignorance of how to apply to be placed on the register, fails to be placed on it. If these Amendments are adopted it should lead to a great deal of simplification as well as security in the sense that those entitled to get on the register will be assured that they are there.

Mr. Tomlinson: I think the mover of the Amendment, in one portion of his speech at any rate, told the Committee why the Amendment could not be accepted. I realised when these Amendments were put down that we had acted illogically in one instance. But I did not think that an illogical action on our part in meeting the requirements of the 1914–18 pensioners—which is based on the fact that they have hitherto been safeguarded under the King's Roll Council—would be used to bring in the pensioners of this war into it unless they satisfy the definition in Clause 1. The position is, that in order to make that provision for the 1914–18 pensioner it is possible under the Bill as now drafted that pensioners will be entered upon the register who are not disabled in the sense set out in Clause 1, because many who are receiving pensions have to-day overcome their disability, have rehabilitated themselves, are in employment and their disability is no bar to obtaining and retaining employment.

Major Manningham-Buller: Will not these be removed from the register straight away?

Mr. Tomlinson: No. Under the King's Roll they have received during all the years at any rate some measure of protection because of the fact that they were originally disabled, and the employer qualified for the benefits which came to him through being on the King's Roll. I am sure this Committee would not desire that any individual who obtained any protection as a consequence of that King's Roll should lose it because we are seeking to make additional provision for the disabled now. That is the reason why the whole of the 1914–18 pensioners are brought in. But Clause 1 lays it down that the pensioner must be disabled, and his disablement must be a handicap to

his obtaining and retaining his employment. An individual may lose a little finger on his left hand. I can think of one occupation for which that would be a serious disability, that is a pianist. I cannot think of another at the moment. [An HON. MEMBER: "A typist."] No, I type myself with two fingers, so it can scarcely be a disability in that sense. But a man could receive a pension for a missing portion of a finger, yet it would not be a handicap to his obtaining and retaining employment. I think my hon. and gallant Friend can be assured that the disabled of this war will receive all the information they need in order to find themselves on the register. But because this provision has been made, and is included under this Bill, I do beg that because of the fact that we are seeking to put someone else in the same category—illogical as that may be—no one will press that illogicality in order to prevent some benefit being given.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: May I put this point to the Minister, that the Clause as it stands at present is restrictive in scope and excludes a class of men not very large in numbers but who should not be lost sight of—those disabled in campaigns between the two wars? There are a certain number of such men who have served on the North-West frontier of India, in China and so on. If this Amendment is accepted it would bring them in.

Mr. Bevin: I think the Amendment which we shall discuss later, containing the words "who have served," covers the point.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: Will they be on the register? If they are, the Minister's new Clause, which we welcome so much, will be of use to them, but I think I am right in saying they will not be on the register.

Mr. Tomlinson: That is true, but there is nothing to prevent their being put on the register. My hon. and gallant Friend asked that if the Amendment is accepted these people should also be included, but I am going to ask that the Amendment should be withdrawn, in the interest of the 1914–18 pensioners.

Major Manningham-Buller: It is obvious from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Amendment will achieve something quite different


from what we intended. I assure the Committee that I, for one, was not trying to restrict what has been granted to the 1914–18 disabled pensioner, but to make it clear that no one who was entitled to be on the register should be excluded. In view of the information which the hon. Gentleman has given, which has quite satisfied me, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 8.—(Duration of registration, and subsequent applications for registration.)

Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 4, line 38, to leave out from "until" to the end of line 41, and to insert "deleted by the Minister."
The object of the Amendment is to obtain an explanation of why the registration is to be provisional. As I understand it, by some means, after an application the case will be considered. It will be decided that the disablement will continue for six months or more, and then there will be a period of registration. I do not quite understand why the registration cannot be permanent. In most legislation it is permanent, but where conditions justify it there is a variation. For instance, under the Blind Persons Act a blind person is registered as such. There is no question of whether in the event of there being any possibility of improvement or even recovery of the sight the person should continue to be registered as a blind person: he will be crossed off the register if that happens. The Bill provides that once a person is registered as disabled and placed in work during the period of his employment, he will be assumed to be disabled, even though in fact he may have recovered from that disablement.
I can conceive the possibility of a number of registered disabled people in that category who have improved their condition, and who in fact are no longer un-economic to the employer, yet the employer can continue to regard them as being disabled people. In other words, the employer will have a quota of registered disabled people who are not actually disabled. A discriminating employer who sought that type of person would be placed in a position of advantage over others. I

would suggest that the process might be reversed, and the registration made permanent but the name of a person should be deleted if his condition made him no longer suitable for the register, the Ministry deciding on the manner of that deletion. There is a possibility of a registered disabled person who has been working at some other job applying for registration as a disabled person in order to retain his job, because while unregistered he cannot retain his job, but on being registered he can. It appears to me, therefore, that the question of provisional registration is one which might be further clarified.

Mr. Tomlinson: The purpose of fixing at the time of registration the period for which the registration shall stand is to get a periodic review. It is true, as the hon. Member has said, that if an individual who is on the register and employed as part of a quota makes sufficient progress in his rehabilitation and his work, and overcomes his disability to such an extent that he would no longer qualify to come on the register, he is still counted as a disabled person while he retains his post, even though his registration has been looked at during the period. Not until he leaves that job and goes to another will the question of his being on the quota arise. The reason is that if he qualifies for the quota in the first instance, the employer is surely entitled to some credit for the fact that he took the man in when he was not able-bodied, and at the same time this will give continuity of employment. Also, the best employers, who go out of their way to provide machinery to enable employees to overcome their disabilities quickly should not be penalised—if it can be called penalised—under the Bill because those employees would no longer be qualified for the register. The period for which the registration is fixed, in the light of a man's incapacity, provides an opportunity of reviewing the matter, and we think that that is the best way to deal with it. The series of Amendments in the name of my hon. Friend are, I think, all intended to bring out this point. If carried, they would bring everybody under Clause 1 of the Bill, as a register would not be necessary. I think my hon. Friend will see that the method proposed would give us the results which he, too, has in mind although I must admit that, as he argued the case, he made some


points for the reverse working of the machine.

Mr. Messer: Does my hon. Friend see this point? It is possible to have this provisional registration, the man will go beyond that period in his employment, and then, before he can get employment again as a registered person, he has to make fresh application. That has to be repeated.

Mr. Tomlinson: If a man recovers from his disability to such an extent that it can no longer be looked upon as a handicap, he is at liberty at any time to challenge the decision to have his name removed from the register if the circumstances warrant it. One can conceive a man being in a job and not being disabled for that job, and consequently losing his registration because he has re-qualified for employment as a normal person, yet if he lost that job he would need to come on the register again, in order to obtain the particular type of work which he sought.

Mr. Messer: That is not my point. Perhaps I put the illustration badly. A man is registered, we will assume, for nine months. It is assumed that he will have recovered at the end of nine months, so that he can leave that job and go as an ordinary worker. In point of fact, on the expiration of nine months he has not lost his disablement. Then he loses his job, because the quota goes down or for some other reason. When he applies for some other job, he has to apply again to go on the quota. That may happen several times.

Mr. Tomlinson: No, if he has not lost his registration at the time he loses his job, he can go back to the register, and go on another quota.

Mr. Messer: The registration is for nine months. He keeps the job for 12 months and then goes on another job. The registration has expired, and he has to apply again.

Mr. Tomlinson: There is no intention of fixing a date for registration: the date is for examination. But I will look into the point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Tomlinson: I beg to move, in page 4, line 49, to leave out "and," and to insert:

The provisions of Sub-section (1) of the last preceding Section as to the matters which may be prescribed thereunder shall have effect as respects the matters which may be prescribed under this Sub-section.
This Amendment is intended to meet a point which was raised on Clause 7. Now that we have met the requirements of the Committee by restricting the Minister's powers to prescribe, the same point arises here. The Amendment sounds legal, but what it means, in effect, is that the same principle shall apply to Clause 8, with regard to the retention of names on the register, as applies with regard to disqualification which shall take place under Clause 7.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 9.—(Obligations as to employment of quota of registered persons in substantial staffs.)

Sir I. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, to leave out the first "a," and to insert:
every Government Department, local authority, body corporate and other.
The point here is to make sure that His Majesty's Government and local authorities and all other quasi-public bodies like the B.B.C. and the Port of London Authority are under the same compulsion to take their quota of disabled men as is the private employer.
It would seem to be anomalous to compel the private employer to take disabled men if Government Departments were not similarly compelled. I believe that it is constitutionally difficult to compel the Government to do anything—for the King can do no wrong—and I do not know whom we would prosecute if we found that there was not a percentage of men, for example, in the Ministry of Labour. In those circumstances it would give me very great pleasure to see the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary duly dealt with by process of law but they will understand that there is nothing personal in this. However, it is a point of importance, and Parliament and the country and employers should know that all our Government Departments, local authorities and quasi-public bodies shall be under the same compulsion for direction or, at any rate, obligation, so clearly stated that there shall be no possi-


bility of misunderstanding about it. It is to secure such a situation that I move the Amendment.

The Deputy-Chairman: There is an Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb)—in Clause 13, page 10, line 7, at end, to insert "and shall be deemed to include employment in a Government Department." It is practically the same as the present Amendment, and we are rather hoping that the principle of the two Amendments might be discussed now.

Mr. Lewis: I am very glad that this question has been raised. The Minister rather gave one to understand that all Government Departments are included, but it might be well that the fact should be emphasised by the insertion of some such words as those suggested in the Amendment. It is a mistake to suppose that Government Departments are necessarily interested in, or sympathetic to, disabled ex-Servicemen. On the contrary, I have recently come across two cases, which I mention by way of illustration, to show that the reverse is the case. The Ministry of Fuel and Power, for example, use their powers to-day under the rationing of petrol to prevent disabled ex-Servicemen from running hired cars. They made a bargain, I understand, with vested interests in the hired-car trade whereby, if a man were not employed in this occupation immediately before the outbreak of war, he could not now enter it. That completely debars a man who was serving his country at the outbreak of the war and who now becomes disabled from following his calling. A very bad case was put to me the other day where application had been refused on those grounds, and only yesterday the hon. Member for the Newton Division (Sir R. Young) raised a case in this House with regard to the Food Ministry. He drew attention to a case where a disabled ex-Serviceman wished to open a small restaurant in Manchester. The man had gone to great trouble to make his arrangements and he had got the necessary finance. The Food Minister in effect said, "No, I will not allow him to do it." If that is the kind of attitude that Ministers like the present Minister of Fuel and Power and the Minister of Food will take towards disabled ex-Servicemen when the war is raging,

what kind of treatment can they expect when the war is a thing of the past?
It is most important that the obligations laid down in the Bill should be fairly and squarely placed upon Government Departments in the text of the Bill. I hope very much that the Minister in charge of the Bill will see his way to include some such words. The Minister of Labour has the reputation of being no respecter of persons. I hope that, if it falls to him to administer this Measure in the early days after the war, he will live up to that reputation and will see that these Government Departments play their part adequately under the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Graham White: Unless my memory plays me entirely false, we were informed that the Government Departments would play their fullest possible part under this Bill. If indeed Government Departments, municipal corporations and other corporate bodies were not only to contract out of the Bill, but to adopt a low standard in regard to the Measure, it would really be meaningless. I hope the Government will dispel any doubt which may remain in the mind of any hon. Member on this point. I listened With interest to what the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) said. It would be intolerable if conduct of that kind were meted out to disabled men after the war. I do not attach as much importance as he did to these specific instances, as it might well be found on examination that the Ministry of Food in Manchester or wherever it was failed to give a licence for setting up a catering business on the ground that it might be very much against the interests of other persons.

Sir Robert Young: The Minister made no such suggestion. He said that there were already 20 restaurants in the particular area.

Mr. White: That confirms what I am saying. Ministers, knowing the requirements of an area and how they could be met would be failing in their duty if they allowed a man to start in a business that was not wanted and which might do injury.

The Attorney-General: As far as local authorities, bodies corporate and others are concerned, these words are not necessary because, under the interpretation Act, the word "person" includes bodies either corporate or incorporate.


[An HON. MEMBER: What is meant by "incorporate"?] It may be a difficult conception to laymen, but it is quite simple to a lawyer. It is a body of people connected together by some bond or other which does not happen to make them a legal entity in the eyes of the law. As far as Government Departments are concerned, that is a matter of the greatest possible importance and it was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in the Second Reading Debate, when he gave the House the assurance that the Government are prepared to undertake everything that they impose upon other employers. If it is suggested that the legal provisions of the Bill should apply, not only would that be contrary to precedent, but we would get into the most inextricable difficulties and produce a picture to the public which, I think, they would regard as ridiculous. The provisions of the Bill which we shall come to later in regard to prosecutions undertaken by, and under the authority of, the Minister of Labour will make sure that there shall be consultation and outside advice before prosecution is undertaken. It would be a somewhat curious spectacle, apart from wider grounds, if the Minister of Labour had to refer to a committee a question whether he himself had committed an offence and be in complete control of proceedings against himself. I do not think that that would be right. I do not wish to minimise the importance of the assurance that has been given and that the Committee and the House want to be assured that Government Departments will undertake the liabilities with regard to disabled persons which have been imposed upon other employers, but it would be impracticable to apply the legal machinery of the Bill. Questions can be asked and it is obviously a matter in which people are interested and information can be obtained at any time.

Mr. Gallacher: I do not like the line taken by the Attorney-General. There is in this country continual criticism of the way matters are carried on in Government Departments and I myself have had considerable experience of going to Government Departments. The one decision one can always obtain on the part of those responsible in the Department is, "Do nothing," and to get anyone to take the responsibility

of doing something is in the region of the impossible. I suggest that on this question, which is a very important one, an official in every Government Department should be given full responsibility for taking the necessary action to see that the quota is applied and carried out, on the understanding that, if he does not do his job and get things moving, he will be subject to prosecution. It is a scandal the way the whole of this administrative organisation of the Government is so hedged around by red tape, so that no man is responsible for doing anything, and they simply keep "passing the buck" from one to another. It must not be thought for a moment that because we get a statement here that they are going to do this or to do that, they will do it. There has been a great splash in the Scottish Press this week. The British Legion is calling for a meeting of ex-Service men and the wives of serving soldiers in a certain town to protest against the action of the local authority in having appointed an accountant who is not an ex-Service man. He not only happens to be an accountant but a conscientious objector, though conscientious objectors have their rights and are entitled to the same treatment as everybody else.

An Hon. Member: Why?

The Deputy-Chairman: We must not discuss "Why?"

Mr. Gallacher: It comes into this question. This House decided that the conscientious objector has a legal standing in this country and has the right to live, and I only point this out to show what can really happen in local authorities or Government Departments unless some one is given responsibility and is told, "You have a job of work to do and you must see that it is carried through. If you do not carry it through you will be prosecuted." I wish to goodness that I could have a chance of controlling these Government Departments for a short period. I would make a clean up. It would be a good thing to get some of these disabled soldiers, who have experience, and who have suffered so much, into some of these Departments. They may be disabled in body but they are fresher and more able in mind than many of the people already there.

Mr. Piekthorn: I am not quite sure whether it would be in Order to take up fully the very interesting point which has just been raised. I thought the attack on State administration and upon democracy was moving and rather convincing, more particularly, perhaps, the attack upon tape and the assumption that red tape was the worst kind. I believe that in fairness something ought to be said for the other side, but I do not know whether you will wholly approve, Mr. Williams, of my putting the case for Socialism from these benches.

The Deputy-Chairman: I rather hoped that we had had quite enough of this.

Mr. Pickthorn: In that case I will do my best to return to the Amendment. I quite understand the point about the difficulty of putting sanctions on a Government Department, although I thought that means had been found in the past. I agree at least that you cannot do it in the same way to all Departments, but could we have an assurance from the Government that each Department would make a statement to the two Houses annually, showing what percentage of their employees were on the register and would come into the quota if the Government Department concerned were a private employer?

Mr. Bellenger: I am in general sympathy with the Amendment, but I think the Attorney-General gave a satisfactory answer. The only point I would like to add is that I hope it will not be the purpose of Government Departments, in filling their quotas, to put these men in the lowliest possible positions. We see these disabled ex-Servicemen occupying very humble positions in Government offices. I hope a chance will be given to them, and to women, too, to fill much more important posts than I have reason to think they are filling at the moment. This not only applies to Government authorities but to civilian authorities who, from my experience, have done far better than the Government have done in fitting these men into responsible positions in industry. It is something we cannot deal with in the Bill, but I hope the House will not only ask for figures, as suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn)——

Mr. Pickthorn: I am not learned.

Mr. Bellenger: —but will inquire into how they are being occupied.

Mr. George Griffiths: I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) on this point. He said that private employers had been more sympathetic than public employers. I have found the opposite in the mining industry, where I have seen scores of men thrown on the scrap heap. I like the Amendment. It is not often that I like anything coming from the other side of the House. This Amendment ought to be inserted in the Bill, because I am almost certain that the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary stated that some obligation would rest on the Government and on local authorities. If that is so, why not have it definitely in the Bill? I think it would be wise, because there may be some local authorities who want to try and get out of their obligation. They might have a chance to do so if this is not definitely in the Bill.

The Attorney-General: Local authorities are in the Bill.

Mr. Griffiths: Then I withdraw my opposition.

Mr. Tomlinson: I think if Members looked up particulars of employment under the King's Roll they would find that Government Departments had met their obligations under that scheme. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) that what he said does not only apply to disabled people. There are many other classes of people who imagine that they should be in better jobs than they are. I wish to repeat the statement I made on the Second Reading that the Government will take upon themselves the same obligations as they are imposing upon other employers. I will consider the question put by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), as to whether it is possible to make an annual return to the House and in the light of that assurance I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn.

Sir I. Fraser: I have the greatest doubts as to whether Government Departments will not slip up on this unless some annual statement, as has been suggested, is made to the House. Therefore, I welcome the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary that he would see what can be done. Suppose, for example, all the


means of production, distribution and exchange are at some time in the future nationalised. Then there would be no private employers left whom you could compel to employ disabled persons and we would have passed this Bill in vain. Nevertheless, I welcome what the Parliamentary Secretary has said and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, to leave out "substantial."
It appears to me that the trend of the discussion on this Bill has emphasised that there is a general desire to widen the scope as much as possible, and my reading of this Clause leads me to believe that it is unnecessarily limiting in its effect. I am moving this Amendment, therefore, for the purpose of securing from the Government an interpretation of the word "substantial." Hon. Members will observe that later on the Order Paper I have a consequential Amendment dealing with the number, "twenty-five." If one looks at the language of this Clause it reads as follows:
It shall be the duty of a person who has a substantial number of employees to give employment to persons registered as handicapped by disablement.…
If the word "substantial" is there then, by inference, we relieve of any obligation any employer who has not a substantial number of employees. Later, the definite number "twenty-five" is inserted. I am quite aware that in brackets the Minister has inserted a proviso, and the very fact that that is inserted rather suggests that this language raises doubt and is limiting in its effect. It says:
(or such other number as may be specified by an order made by the Minister for the time being in force)".
It occurs to me that the general interpretation of that Clause would be that employers with fewer than 25 employees have no obligation under this Bill. The insertion of the proviso rather indicates that if any revision is made by order it is more likely to be upwards. I submit that an ordinary person reading this would come to the conclusion. I do not quite see why it is necessary to put in the word "substantial," or the number "twenty-five." If we look at the general machinery of the Bill there is a provision made to guard against any undue hard-

ship or difficulty in the consultations between the Minister and the trades concerned. In Clause 16 we have the machinery of the national advisory council and the district advisory committees.
This is, on the whole, a very good Bill; it has been warmly received by public opinion and our Debates have reflected that general good will. While everyone hopes that disablement arising from the war may be less than circumstances suggest, nevertheless we are dealing here with the principle of obligation on the part of employers generally to absorb into our industrial system those who suffer disability. We all know from experience that disablement is a handicap in industrial and other occupations. I speak from a fairly wide knowledge of different occupations and various sections of industry and, therefore, my views are coloured by the fact that many industries employ a substantial volume of labour but such industries very often have a greater degree of difficulty than others in absorbing disabled persons. On the other hand, I have knowledge of a wide range of industries where conditions of employment are very suitable for the employment of persons with different kinds of disablement. In many of these the employer employing 25 persons would be quite a substantial employer of a particular type of labour. In reviewing this Clause I fail to see why the word, "substantial," or the number, "twenty-five," should have a limiting effect. It is always difficult in these matters to insert a specific number and I think the wiser way is to recognise that industry should be flexible and should be required to suit particular circumstances, or the form of employment, as the case may be.
Therefore, I would urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary to examine this language with the same sympathy with which I moved the Amendment, and to ask himself—and I think if he is disposed to meet the Committee we will be only too glad to assist him—whether any limitation of language of this kind should not be removed and we should cultivate a widespread view, right throughout the whole community, that every employer, according to the numbers for which he is responsible, should as far as possible, after reasonable consultation with representatives of the various industries, be able to


form appropriate groups. So we should get the maximum advantage at the start, the obligation being comprehensive throughout the country, rather than limited in the sense in which I think this Clause limits it.

Mr. Tomlinson: I appreciate the spirit in which this Amendment has been moved and, if I may say so, it was perhaps for some of the reasons that the hon. Member himself gave that the number of 25 was put in and the word "substantial" was included. Otherwise, it might apply to every employer in the country, however small, and, administratively, if we were to proceed on the basis of exclusion by application, it would be impossible to deal with the large number of smaller employers, down to the employer of one individual, with whom we would be called upon to deal in the first instance. The figure of 25 was, perhaps, chosen as being substantial in the sense of a number with which a beginning could be made. If you are working in terms of percentages, I submit that 25 is the lowest number with which you could reasonably begin, from an administrative point of view. The words in the Clause, leaving it to the Minister, in certain circumstances, to revise this number, mean, as far as we are concerned, at any rate, a revision downwards. It could never mean a revision upwards, for the reason that 25 is the number with which we can begin and with which it is administratively possible to deal, and, if it should be found necessary to go below this number in order to carry out our intentions, as well as the intentions of hon. Members, there will be no difficulty about it so far as the provisions of the Bill are concerned.
With regard to the provisions of Clause 12, and in connection with the instance given of a large number of people employed in certain industries in small numbers, it may be possible in those instances to include numbers below the figure of 25. Under Clause 12, we are seeking to take power to have certain occupations specified for the disabled, and, if that power is granted, the figure of 25 will not apply as far as that particular Clause is concerned. It is primarily a question of administration and of the wording of the Bill giving the power to do the other things suggested by the mover of the Amendment.

Mr. Woods: We appreciate the difficulty the Minister is up against in promoting legislation, but our concern is that, if it remains as it is, it creates, first, a positive legal difficulty, because it can be pleaded that a man is not a substantial employer and you would have the legal difficulty of deciding what a substantial employer is. It seems to me that, in time, there will be novel legal disputes, and we do not want the money of disabled men squandered in legal argument, and I think it is necessary to have some modification—perhaps the deletion of the word "substantial." In regard to the number, our experience has been that, in many industries, the bulk of the employees are in small units. It seems to me that here is an argument that an employer whose total employees are fewer than 25 could stick out his chest and say "I am not covered; it does not apply to me," and feel self-righteous about it, when, among his small number of employees, there may be reasonable grounds for suspecting a high proportion of them to be disabled men and women of one category or another. It will have an effect which, I think, has to be considered in many of these industries organised in small units. Then there are also comprehensive units which have a number of different departments. Therefore, any employer covered by categories A, B, C and D, such as boot repairing, dairy work and so forth, each of which are small units employing in the aggregate as many as the larger units, would be quite immune from the operation of the Bill, whereas the organisation, which comprises all these smaller units, would be under this obligation.
I agree with the hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) that there is genuine appreciation of the Bill. There is, I think, throughout the country a real anxiety that it should be genuinely operative, and that no man or woman, because of physical disability received in the country's interests, should be further handicapped through life. The problem is how can we modify this wording so that every person privileged to employ his fellow men carries an obligation to see that he takes his share of this handicap because of their service to the country. Although this actual phrasing may not meet the situation I appeal to the Minister to consider at a later stage whether there could be a removal of the hint that anybody employing less than


25 people is not touched, and an assurance that the small units would be considered in the same way as the larger.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think I should point out that we have been discussing the length of time as laid down in the Amendments of the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) and the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrewshire (Major Lloyd). Perhaps we may have a wide discussion, and the hon. Members will move their Amendments formally for discussion now?

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I should like my Amendment to be included in the present discussion, but almost everything I wanted to say has already been said, and I have only one or two words to add. I only want to say, so far as my Amendment is concerned, that, in substituting 20 for 25, my aim is to improve the prospects of disabled individuals and define the areas in which they should be employed. After all, a man who employs 20 people is in a very considerable line of business, and I do not like to feel that he is to be excluded. I would like to press this point and say that, although we have some protection in the words at the end of the Clause, I do not think it is quite sufficient. I should like to see the Clause extended and the number lowered. Finally, my feeling is this. What, if any, assurance have we that any employer of less than 25 is going to help this House in doing what we are setting out to do to improve the prospects of the disabled? So far as I know, there is nothing that we can look upon as an assurance in that direction, and therefore I urge the Minister to consider whether he cannot widen the area for the employment of the disabled by lowering the number from 25 to some smaller number, such as 20, as I have suggested.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of Order. Do I understand that the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) has moved his Amendment?

The Deputy-Chairman: No, he will move that formally, if he is not satisfied, and wishes to divide on it. At present, we are only discussing it.

Mr. Lewis: My Amendment is to vary the wording "not less than 25" to "such other greater numbers." The

Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Bill, speaking in reply to the hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes), has already explained that the words in the Bill do not mean what they say. He has told us that, whereas the words in the Bill include either a movement upward or downward of the figure 25, in fact, there is no intention whatever of moving it upward, but only, if circumstances render it desirable, of moving it down. I think that shows how undesirable it is to have these vague phrases in the Bill, because, but for that accidental remark of the Parliamentary Secretary, we should have thought that the words meant what they said. The case at issue is really this. Are we in Parliament to take responsibility in this matter, or are we going to put it upon the Minister? Are we to settle the question about this limit of 25, or are we to leave it to the Minister to make the number according to his wish or according to the pressure put upon him? It is one of those cases where we should be willing to take the responsibility ourselves. I will tell the Committee why. There is very wide support for this Bill, not only in Parliament but in the country, but I think also that all of us realise that it is very important in working this Bill that as little difficulty should be put in the way of industry as possible, because, after all, it is on the ultimate success of industry that everything depends.
Quite clearly, if you contrast the position of a man employing half-a-dozen workpeople with a business employing, say, 500 workers, it is very much easier in the larger business to undertake a responsibility of this kind. The more employees there are, the more the operations of the employees can be differentiated. Take the case of a man working a lift. A man who has lost one arm can work a lift perfectly well. If he goes into a business where the working of a lift is the full-time occupation of one man, he can take that job and do it. In a smaller business, a man has to work the lift and handle many things, and in such a case that man could not do the job.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): He could be the managing director.

Mr. Lewis: It is obvious, broadly speaking, that as the numbers go up, so it is easier to limit the kind of job a man has


to do right up to the extreme case. Therefore, it is much easier to operate a scheme such as is envisaged in this Bill, if a large number of people are employed, than if a small number are employed. If an effort were made to fix this obligation, in the terms of the Bill, on employers of a small number of people, the burden on industry would be out of all proportion to the good that would be done. Nobody suggests that if a man employs two or three people he should be discouraged from employing one disabled person. It has been suggested that 25 is a reasonable number, and I think that the Committee should be willing to take the responsibility of fixing that number and not leave it to some future Minister or future circumstances to decide. Let us decide it now.

Mr. Bevin: There is nothing magic about the figure of 25. I would like to impress upon the Committee that this Bill is the result, not merely of discussion in this House, but of long and patient discussion with industry, trade unions, employers, chambers of commerce and all sorts of people up and down the country. There has never been exhibited on all sides a greater willingness to join with the State in grappling with this problem. I do not want to lose that willingness. I am not suggesting, of course, that because the figure 25 was fixed in these negotiations that, therefore, the Committee is bound to that number. I am not foolish enough to do that, but 25 was regarded as the starting-off figure, as a result of the acceptance of the obligation. I have had to say, in considering this matter that I could not limit myself to 25. I do not know what is going to arise and therefore I could not accept the proposal that we should fix 25 as a rigid figure.

Mr. Lewis: Would the Minister allow me to ask why he did not say in his Bill "such lower number," if he means lower?

Mr. Bevin: I do mean lower, but if my hon. Friend would have patience and allow me to proceed I might be able to help the Committee. I do not propose to relieve anybody of the obligation, by putting up the figure of 25, but I do propose to take powers, under this Bill, to put it down if the circumstances need it. My hon. Friend has suggested 20. I am not wedded to 25, and if 20 would meet

the wishes of the Committee I am quite willing to accept that figure instead of 25, as the starting-off figure. It does, probably, give just a little wider field at the inauguration of the administration, and I am anxious to meet Members' wishes. Therefore, as I say I am willing to accept 20 as the starting-off figure, which goes a long way to meet the points that have been made and, at the same time, to retain power to make it lower if circumstances should warrant.
The only point I make is this. I do not know what the volume of disablement within the meaning of the Bill is going to be. No one can tell: If I gave the Committee an estimate to-day and if then big battles happen before the year is out, that figure might be completely falsified. The new medical treatments and the developments which are taking place in medicine are, fortunately, in this war reducing amputations. If we succeed by medical discovery in reducing such things as gangrene and amputations arising out of wounds, we shall be able to apply remedial measures quickly. I am looking to medical science in the future to help in reducing, at least, the amputation side of this problem and, therefore, I have kept an open mind concerning the figure of 25 until we see exactly what we have to face in the future. I cannot, therefore, budget for or arrive at any particular figure until I know what we may be called upon to face. But I can risk taking the 20 instead of the 25 and I am quite willing to do so.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I listened attentively to the Minister when he explained to us that prior to this Measure being drafted or introduced, negotiations had taken place with the representatives of industry. Presumably, he referred also to trade unions and, in particular, I should imagine he referred to representatives of the distributive trades, the shop workers, as being included in the negotiations, because he referred also to chambers of commerce.

Mr. Bevin: There is operating with the Ministry of Labour, a joint consultative committee through the Trades Union Congress. We do not single out industries; we deal with employers and unions in a combined council.

Mr. Walkden: I want the Committee to look at the Bill and to look at the Amendment and see how it would affect workers


with whom we are conversant. If we leave this Clause or even the Amendment as it is—that is 20—and if we examine the whole of the retail trade in any provincial town, eliminating the co-operative societies and the multiple firms like Woolworths and Marks and Spencer, we shall find 80 per cent. of the employers will not have any obligation whatever under this Bill. That is a fair assumption. I see the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Bartle Bull) in his place.

Mr. Bartle Bull: I want to make certain the Co-ops get their share.

Mr. Walkden: I believe that in the whole division that the hon. Member represents, leaving out the co-operative societies and the multiple firms and probably one of the big employers in the distributive trade, what I say applies—I am sorry to select Enfield as an example, but it is an area that I know well. But speaking from the angle of one who represents shopworkers in a trade union capacity, I believe there will not be more than 80 per cent. of the employers in any provincial town, affected by this Clause, if we apply 25 or 20 as the figure in the Bill. London emporiums, it is true, will employ more than 25, but if we go to the suburbs of London, again 80 per cent. of the shops in the suburbs employ maybe only two, three, four or six people. Did anybody ever see, for instance, after the last war, any silver-haired people behind shop counters in the provincial towns, except those employed by the good employers? Employers employed only young persons. They had no patriotism and they were out for cheap labour. Is it conceivable that they are at last going to oblige the Minister or the nation by changing their attitude after this war?
Let us take the case of coal. If you look at any railway depôt you will find probably eight, nine or 10 coal merchants, but most of those coal merchants employ three, four or six people and no more. How can we agree on the matter of coal merchants? What about boot repairers? I will again mention Enfield, if I may, as an example. In the whole Enfield area I know of only one firm that employs more than 20 people on boot repairing. All the rest employ very small numbers indeed—three, four, five or six at the most. Boot-repairing is the kind of job a disabled person can do. The Minister may prefer to schedule them as he intends to do later

on. If we look at the building trade, house decorating, plumbing, and similar crafts or even at the legal profession in any provincial town, we find such trade or profession does not employ more than three or four people. Are they all to escape? Are they not to be included? Is there to be no obligation on them? I am putting it frankly to the Minister when I say we could take the whole gamut of the groups I have referred to, and I still maintain that 80 per cent.—leaving out the multiple firms—will not be covered by this Clause at all. Therefore, the hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) is suggesting a most reasonable Amendment and one that ought to be acceptable. I do not agree with the idea of 20 being substituted for 25 because it is equally dangerous. I want to include all the small firms because they must have some obligation imposed upon them. Remembering the treatment we had after the last war, I hope the Minister will, at least, accept the very reasonable suggestion moved by the hon. Member for East Ham South.

Mr. Pickthorn: There are two points which still seem rather obscure to me. The first is the point upon which we have just heard a rather impassioned defence of big business—the second we have had from the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. E. Walkden). We have had four, altogether, the other two being from the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Woods) and the hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes). It was the first to mention the Co-operative Societies. I apologise to the Committee if it is because I did not listen carefully enough that I was not sure whether each branch counted as a separate undertaking or whether all counted as a single undertaking. I gather that all count as a single one, and there is a feeling, therefore, that you might have shops with only four, five or six employees not under the obligation of employing somebody on the register, and therefore at an advantage compared with the Co-ops.
We have been assured by the Minister that to accept this suggestion will make the Bill administratively unworkable and, if that is true, the question arises, which do they want most—that persons on the register should have a considerably increased chance of employment, or that businesses employing more than 25 should have exactly equal treatment with


those employing fewer? On that comparison, decision on the Amendment must rest.
The second point that is still obscure to me is this. It is surely the business of the House of Commons not to give any Minister any power which is more likely to do good than capable of being abused, and especially now because we are, as we are often reminded, in many ways an unrepresentative House of Commons. Ministers are nothing unless they are an emanation of us, so that whatever unrepresentativeness there may be in us, is a worse defect in them. Therefore, all the stronger is the argument that we should not give them powers except those for which there will be a strong chance of useful employment and no very great chance of ill-employment. On this occasion, Ministers themselves, unless I have got this muddled, tell us that the Bill gives them power to vary the figure upwards and, though they think it would be foolish for them to do so, and they feel sure that no Minister would do so, they are fighting for the retention of that power in the Bill. Unless there is some explanation which has not occurred to us, that case seems to be one which no House of Commons can decently swallow.

Mr. Barnes: I should like to thank the Minister for his statement. It is clear now that the proviso enables him to vary the figure downwards, and that is his intention. The whole purpose of the Amendment was to widen the scope of employment. It has served its purpose. Although I do not agree with the number going into the Bill, nevertheless, if the Minister feels it is a substantial point and that he can go to 20 and gain experience before he modifies it still further downwards, I accept that and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Bevin: As there seems to be some ambiguity, I am quite willing to look into it and see if I can accept the words "lower than" between now and Report. It was not my intention that 25 should be the minimum figure. It will now be 20 and I am willing to try to find words to make it lower, so I think I meet everyone's point of view.

Sir Douglas Thomson: There has been a lot

of discussion in the House and in the Press about this figure of 25. Twenty is the figure that we should all like to see in the Bill but there has been a lot of advertisement of the figure of 25. Regulations will never receive the same publicity and, if the Minister makes a Regulation, small employers may suddenly find themselves infringing the law. I feel that we ought to have stuck to the figure of 25 or 20 and, if necessary, have a small amending Bill later. That would get much more publicity and there would be no question of people not knowing that a Regulation had gone through.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 5, line 33, after "employment" to insert:
at the standard rate of wages recognised for the type of work performed.
This Amendment is moved for the purpose of erecting a safeguard to prevent wage cutting and cheap labour. There is some danger that the situation might be exploited. We are proposing to give vocational training and rehabilitation and send into the workshops and factories men who would previously not have been on the same scale as those already there. I am anxious that they should not be exploited and that there shall not be wage cutting in relation to those already working on the same job.

Mr. Bevin: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment, because it is impossible to lay down such a rigid condition when you are dealing with disabled persons. There are some people who will not be able to work full time, and certainly people for whom there will have to be accommodation in the arrangement of hours and the rest of it. We have had a good deal of experience of that. I announced last week that it is the Government's intention to deal with the minimum wage fixing machinery so as to cover almost every type of employment. Under that machinery there is already provision in certain circumstances, and after inquiry, to give exemptions or variations. It is really a great protecting factor. Again, in dealing with disabled persons we shall get up against the problem of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and all kinds of lines cut across it. I do not believe there will be much difficulty except in isolated cases. If you take the great industries, by and large,


we have had very little difficulty on the wage side at all. Also I want the trade unions and the employers in their collective agreements to make provision for training and for working up to the scale of production and all that kind of thing, and I am sure they will do it.
In other words, I think this problem will form part of the major collective agreements. I would rather rest on that footing because it gives much greater flexibility in dealing with a variety of cases which you cannot foresee in trying to deal with it legislatively at the moment. For these reasons if we are allowed a little freedom we can carry industry with us, as we wish to obtain full employment instead of the wretched position we were in between the two wars, and I am sure that the chances of dealing with the difficulty will be better than we have known in the past. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment and allow us to watch it very carefully and make provision in the minimum wage legislation or in industrial agreements to cope with the difficulty.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: I am glad my hon. Friend has raised this and I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I should say that most of the employees will be in shops where there is a trade union organisation, and I suppose the organisers will get a chance of investigating whether these men or women are getting the proper rate of wages or not. I suppose most employers would pay the wage they have been paying in the ordinary course of their business but there are always people who will take advantage of a situation like this if there is any chance whatever. It is known as a fact, and hon. Members will probably come in contact with cases, that old age pensioners who are working in industry have been used to reduce wages and, unless the Minister is specific on this matter, there is a very great danger that wages will be affected.
I am not so sure that you will not need to have a kind of special trade board for this class of worker. I wonder if my right hon. Friend had now been in the position of a trade union organiser whether he would be quite as optimistic as he has been this afternoon. I am not so sure that he would be. Giving all allowance for the good will of employers and of the general community towards

this class of worker, any man who faces the ordinary world to-day is bound to admit that there is risk not only of these men being used for the lowering of wages, but it may have a bad effect upon legislation. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman is apprehensive of this and I hope the Ministry of Labour—whether the present Minister is there or not—will watch this matter very closely because it is really dangerous.

Mr. Silverman: I thought I was going to have the unalloyed satisfaction of being able to support the Government right through the Committee stage, but I am afraid my right hon. Friend's answer to this Amendment rather disappoints me. Obviously nobody believes, the Minister least of all, that it will be a good thing if these men, when the burden of their employment is carried by industry, should be employed at cut rates. Nobody wants that, and I acquit at once the Minister or the Government of desiring any such thing. But what I understand the Minister to say is this: "We do not want them to be employed at cut rates, we want them to be employed at the full rates they would earn. But do not legislate about it, leave it to our general legislation which is still to come about minimum wages, or leave it to collective agreements between the trades unions concerned in the different industries." I suggest to the Minister, with great respect, that if he were to apply that principle to the object of this Bill, there would be no need for the Bill at all. He could equally well have said: "This burden of disablement ought not to be borne by the victims of the particular accidents, it ought to be placed on the shoulders of industry as a whole in general legislation for social welfare and in agreements arrived at between the trades unions and industry." Then there would be no need for the Bill. But it has not been thought right to do that, and I think the whole country rejoices that it has not been thought right to do it.
What the Government are doing, wish the enthusiastic support of most of us, is to say: "Let us have a law about it. Let us have it organised, and let us have the burden spread on lines that the legislator has approved, so that the individual victim shall not be penalised for his disability." If you are saying that, what


can be the reason for not saying it with regard to the rate of wages at which he is employed? I cannot see what the objection is. It is quite true that a man who is disabled may not be worth as much to the employer as a man who has not been disabled, but what does that matter? Of course he is not worth as much; if he were, you would not need to legislate about it and he would be employed anyhow. What we are saying is that we must care for him just because he is not worth as much, but that he must be paid because he produces as much. It is difficult to see why my hon. Friend's Amendment should not be thought a reasonable provision to include in the Bill. I hope the Minister will reconsider it.

Sir Herbert Williams: I have listened with interest to the short discussion. We all agree with my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment but I think we have to be practical-minded people, and this Amendment would produce chaos. I do not know what "standard rate of wages" means. I do not know whether it refers to daily, hourly, monthly or an annual rate. I am going to ask the Committee to assume that two men are on piece-work, one disabled, the other fit, and the disabled man produces less than the fit man. Quite clearly, not in the interests of the employer but in the interests of the consumer of the goods produced, the man who produces less, ought to be paid less than the man who produces more: otherwise your whole system of remuneration in accordance with output is destroyed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Whose system?"] Anybody's system. They have in Russia, for example, a very extraordinary system of premium bonus which they have developed in the coal mines there. But it does not matter whose system it is. [An HON. MEMBER "That would not seem to arise here."] It only arises to the extent that the interruption is in order.
Let us take the case of a man who has suffered an accident. Because of that accident he receives compensation for loss of earning capacity. If a man has had compensation for loss of earning capacity, obviously if he can earn the full rate, he is no longer entitled to his compensation. It depends on the nature of the accident what his compensation may be. I am

assuming the man has had, from somebody, a sum of money because he has suffered some kind of injury and loss of earning capacity. Whether it is a lump sum obtainable from his employer, or from the insurance company with which the car which ran him down was insured, I do not care. If he has had a sum of money which produces an income to compensate him for loss of earning capacity, then, obviously, if you say he is to be paid the same as the man who is producing more, you are destroying the whole basis of remuneration being related to production. If the hon. Member says, "What does it matter if the employer has to pay?" I say the employer does not pay these things; it is the consumer of the goods who pays, quite clearly.

Mr. Silverman: Is my hon. Friend suggesting for a single moment that the general body of consumers in this country—40,000,000 of us—are really going to raise a very strong objection to paying the infinitesimal increase in cost which he alleges in order to see a disabled man working as hard and working the same hours as the man next door to him and getting the same wage?

Sir H. Williams: It is one of the elements in the cost of production which we must take into account as sensible people. We are trying to get people into employment after this war. We have to sell our goods in competition with other people and we have to be efficient. It is not a question of being unsympathetic. We are dealing with the realities of the situation. If you have two men working alongside one another at the same occupation on piece work, no one is offended if one man makes 20 per cent. more than the other. They regard it is fair, because he has produced 20 per cent. more. All remuneration, so far as you can achieve it, should be related to output. There are many occupations where you cannot measure output, and there you have a series of conventional means to arrive at an annual, monthly, or hourly rate of remuneration but, in the long run, all remuneration must be related to output. Here is a proposal which I regard as reactionary, just as I regard family allowances as reactionary. That is a case of being remunerated, not for your efficiency as a worker but for inefficiency as a parent in bringing into the world a lot of children whom you are going to ask other


people to keep. There is no getting away from the link between production and reward, and for that reason I am opposing this Amendment.

Major Manningham-Buller: I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down into the realm he has entered, but I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that America has gone farther than we have in this country in the employment in wartime of disabled persons and of keeping close and accurate records in connection with that employment. I have here a report from a number of employers in America dealing with this subject. It starts in this way:
Replies were received from more than 100 employers, most of whom are large corporations engaged in the manufacture of war materials and equipment and are employers of a considerable number of persons with physical impairments. These replies indicate, conclusively, that physically impaired workers produce as much or possibly a little more than the able-bodied workers.

The production of the handicapped is given as follows:


"Above that of the able-bodied
23.8


Same as that of the able-bodied
65.7


Below that of the able-bodied
10.5"

So it seems to me that the point raised by this Amendment is one of very small compass.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: There are two points from the speech of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) with which we ought to deal a little further, although he very nearly got on to the point which I would like to bring to the Committee now. It is this. If a man is disabled, whether in war or in civil occupation, in nearly every case he applies for—and in some cases is granted—some form of compensation or pension, if it is disability. The extent of that is measured, whether by the civil courts or by the company's administration, in accordance with the amount of earning disability which his disablement has produced. If the court knows perfectly well that a man who has lost a leg in industry can be guaranteed his full rate of wages and also get employment, how can that court say that he is suffering any disability at all, and how can they award him damages for the injury he has received? The same thing applies in the case of pensions. With regard to what was said by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, I quite agree.

I have had a great deal of experience in this. He must know that a similar Measure is not in force in the United States from which he gets his figures. My own experience is that, as long as this works voluntarily, then so long the disabled man is, as the United States authorities say, as good as or even in some cases better than the man who has not suffered. But guarantee all those men their full wages, and full employment, and I venture to say that those percentages will be very different indeed.

Mr. Bevin: I would appeal to the Committee to help us to get along with this Bill. The discussion has become a little discursive, covering a wide economic field. We have even got on to a discussion as to the link between production and reward in connection with family allowances. This Debate shows how unwise it would be to try to put a thing like this in a Bill. Other wages are not regulated by Bills, and (except in cases where there is insufficient organisation) the whole trade union movement is opposed to wages being regulated legally.

Mr. Silverman: There is no organisation for these men.

Mr. Bevin: Certainly there is. These men will be employed in all the staple industries of the country, or the Bill is no good at all. In so far as they are employed in those industries which are properly organised and have wages regulated. I prefer to leave it to the normal course of negotiation in the industry. Secondly, I would like to impress this upon the Committee. It was suggested that I should have a trade board for disabled men. The one thing you do not want is to single out disabled men in that sense. It would be the worst thing in the world. Someone else said "If you pay compensation, then the next employer is entitled to take that into account." It never happens. I hope it never will. Suppose a man loses a limb in a mine and I train him to be a boot-maker, why in the world should he not have a boot-maker's wages? What business is it of his new employer how he lost his limb, as long as he can produce the goods? Therefore, this is regulated by those wage agreements. But I said with regard to minimum wages where you have an exceptional case, under the Trade Board Act, if owing to disability a man cannot


perform full service, the trade boards are entitled to issue a permit to the employer after investigation in subnormal cases.
There may be exceptional cases, and it may be better in extreme cases to allow that to happen rather than have a man doing nothing. So far as is humanly practicable, I want to see the disabled man with a full citizen's life in spite of his disablement. The tragedy I found when I came to this Ministry—and I am not criticising any of my predecessors—was that owing to unemployment there were 185,000 people whose cases the local committees had coolly and calmly investigated and who had been written off by the committees as being of no further use to society. That number represents in man-power an enormous army, and I determined as Minister to try to tackle their problem. I have had some experience of it. By patient endeavour and training I have brought the number down to 18,000. That has been worth doing. I have had virtually no case arise over wages as a result of that effort. There have been adjustments in bad cases, but they were made by arrangement. I would like that to continue. Give us as much flexibility and opportunity as possible. I know that hon. Members do no trust Ministers, but I think that I have a couple of months before I get the sack, so they might trust me for that time.

Mr. Messer: The Amendment has not been a wasted effort, for it has enabled the Minister to make a statement which I welcome. He has clarified the position and met the situation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 5, line 34, to leave out "registered as," and to insert "who are."
I move this for the purpose of ascertaining whether it is not possible for people who are disabled and are already in employment to be counted in the quota. Disabled people may be in employment but may not wish to be on the register, and if they are not counted in the quota the employer may discharge other people in order to get his quota.

Mr. Tomlinson: There is no question that the quota provisions must be maintained, and it would be impracticable to

work it in the way suggested by the Amendment. If these words were inserted they would prevent us doing what the hon. Member wants us to do.

Mr. Messer: I do not understand the explanation, but I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Tomlinson: I will communicate with the hon. Member.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir I. FRASER:

In page 5, line 38, after "purpose," insert:
provided that in carrying out this duty such a person may give a preference to ex-service men or women.

The Deputy-Chairman: I would suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that this point might be discussed better on the Minister's proposed new Clause—(Preference for ex-servicemen and women).

Sir I. Fraser: I shall be happy if that is done, and I do not, therefore, move this Amendment.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I beg to move, in page 5, line 44, to leave out "twenty-five" and to insert "twenty."
We have had a discussion on this point and I move the Amendment formally.

Mr. Tomlinson: I understand that in my absence this Amendment has been accepted, and I am very pleased that it has been.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. MESSER:

In page 5, line 46, at end, insert:
In the case of a disabled person who can only work part time because of his disability and is, in consequence, only paid part wages, the Minister shall provide for the payment to him of such sums as will meet the balance of full wages.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that this Amendment ought to be moved as a new Clause rather than as a variation of this Clause.

Mr. Lewis: I beg to move, in page 5, line 49, after "employment," to insert:
for a longer period than one month.


My purpose in raising this point is to call attention to what may be a difficulty which may arise in practice under the Bill as drafted. Government Departments are apt to be very long-winded. I suppose that there are few, if any, Members in the present House who have not at some time or other had to write a letter to the Secretary of State for War. I venture to say that if any of them has received an answer of any substance, other than a formal answer, inside a month, he will have been very lucky. If any business were carried on in that way it would head straight for bankruptcy, but that is how they do things at the War Office. I am not suggesting that the Ministry of Labour is as bad as that. All Government Departments, even the Ministry of Labour, are of necessity somewhat long-winded. There are a lot of clever and industrious people in the Departments passing responsibility from one to the other, and that takes time. Suppose in the course of business a man who employs only a few workers suddenly loses the services of somebody who carries out an important job. He may run only one motor van which is driven by a man who also handles heavy goods for delivery. It is the kind of job for which it would be difficult to find a disabled man. When he suddenly loses the services of the driver he would in the ordinary course of business take the quickest method open to him to replace him. He might know of somebody he could get in a few hours, even if only in a temporary capacity. Under the Bill he would have to get permission to employ somebody. Suppose that he were so circumstanced that he had among his few employees a high proportion of men who had served in the Army during the war and who had been fortunate enough to come through unharmed. They were reemployed by him, and in consequence of that he has not yet got his quota of disabled people. The position falls vacant and he must fill it. It is not suitable for a disabled man, and he had to get special permission to employ somebody other than a disabled man. I suggest that that will take a considerable time and grave inconvenience might be caused because of it.
I do not care about the particular form of words of my Amendment, but I am suggesting that some provision should be made so that in an emergency of that kind the employer can take on for a short period somebody to fill the vacancy and

get the necessary permission afterwards. I want to enable the employer in such circumstances to be able to act with the promptitude he would exercise in the ordinary course of business and not be made to go through some laborious application to the Ministry which might mean considerable delay. I agree that we must be careful that no loophole is left to enable the employer to evade his obligations under the Bill, but it is clear that cases such as I have described may arise, particularly a few years after the war. The Minister may not like the form of the Amendment and I have not had an opportunity of speaking to him, but if he thinks there is anything in the paint I have made and will promise to look into it and see whether it was a point of substance, I shall be satisfied.

The Attorney-General: We may be long-winded, but we have appreciated the point of the hon. Member and, on the whole, we would not advise the Committee to accept it. I do not believe there will be any practical difficulty in the class of case to which the Bill will apply. If an employer has a vacancy he will do what every employer covered by the Bill will do, and get in touch with the employment exchange. If a suitable man on the register is not available I do not think there would be any delay in the exchange saying, "We have not anybody but we will give you a permit." There will be no difficulty in working it in that way.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: For a non-disabled man?

The Attorney-General: The point which my hon. Friend puts is this: somebody drops out which puts the employer below his quota. Unless he gets a man from the register he will be committing an offence, unless he gets a permit. I am saying that the employer will get into touch with the employment exchange, and if there is a man on the register who fills the bill, the man will be sent along. I think there would be great difficulty about the procedure suggested in the Amendment. If the employer takes on a man and it is later found that he ought to have been on the register and a permit is refused him, that man would lose his job. Nobody could say that that would be satisfactory. The position could be dealt with through the employment exchange at the time, and it would therefore be much better to stick to that method.

Mr. Lewis: I am glad to have had from the learned Attorney-General an assurance that this point has been considered very carefully, and the assurance also that arrangements will be made for permits of this kind to be given promptly by the local managers of employment exchanges without referring the matter to higher quartets. That is clearly implied in what the Attorney-General has said. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, at the end, to insert:
Reasonable cause for discontinuing the employment shall include substantial increase of the industrial handicap due to the disablement but in other respects shall be the same as is applicable to any ordinary worker, but every such disabled person discharged for increase of industrial handicap shall have the right of appeal to the District Advisory Committee.

The Deputy-Chairman: I suggest that it might be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss with this Amendment a somewhat similar Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer), in page 6, line 39, at the end to insert:
() Any disabled person who claims that his employment has been unreasonably discontinued shall be entitled to appeal to the Minister against such discontinuance.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: It will be noted that the Amendment just referred to also suggests that an appeal shall lie if a man is discharged for any handicap. I think the Bill is so good that it is very necessary to preserve a balance. On the one hand, a good many of the Clauses are directed against employers, and very heavy penalties apply to them if they make mistakes. On the other hand, we are doing our utmost to make life easy and to provide employment for disabled persons; but there is a tendency for disabled persons in employment occasionally to make a certain amount of capital out of their disablement. I have had two or three such instances brought to my notice, although I am not in a position to say whether the charges were wholely justified. Complaints were directed against disabled individuals who were said to have made life a perfect burden for their employers. They were ordered to be retained in their existing employment and they were not discharged. We should prevent that sort of

thing from happening if we wish to be fair to employers and to the disabled men, and for that reason I am trying to the best of my ability to provide a definition of "reasonable cause" which is in Clause 5. I do not know whether "reasonable cause" is in any other part of the Bill, but I do not think so.

Mr. Messer: I put my Amendment down because I have found such a wide variety of things which have been called reasonable. We have it in the Bill that an employer shall not discharge a disabled person without reasonable cause, but I have never yet known an employer who has discharged somebody without thinking it was reasonable. What is reasonable to the employer is usually unreasonable to the worker. I do not know any better way of defining in an Act of Parliament what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. All sorts of conditions may make something reasonable at one time and unreasonable at another, and all sorts of factors can be reasonable or unreasonable according to circumstances. I do not know any better way than to give a right of appeal. I may be wrong in suggesting a right of appeal to the Minister. I do not know wheether the Ministry has grown into such a position now that we are doing with it what we should not have dreamed of doing previously, but I am concerned to give somebody who may be victimised an opportunity of ventilating his grievance. Even in the case of the Assistance Board, if somebody is not getting as much as he thinks he ought to get he can appeal. I am sure that the Minister of Pensions feels that the establishment of pension appeal tribunals has taken a load off his. shoulders. If we can have an instrument to examine a case from both sides there will be a better chance that in the end there will be a fair decision.

Mr. Bellenger: Under the Essential Work Order an employer must get the opinion of the national service officer before he can dispense with the services of a man; what is to be the position if an employer thinks he has a reasonable cause for discharging a disabled person? Will he be able merely to discharge him, and no further action will be taken, unless the man goes to the Minister or to the district advisory committee; or will the employer have to get a certificate from somebody at the employment exchange


or the district committee before he can discharge the man?

The Attorney-General: I do not in the least complain of the Amendments that have been put down or of the way in which the case has been presented. Like many other human things, probably this difficulty is not capable of any absolutely perfect solution. Of course, the broad picture of the Bill is in the mind of every Member of the Committee. The Clause deals with one of the two sanctions. If you set up a scheme you must have some sanction, although you hope that most people will do their duty and carry out its provisions without it. Here we are dealing with the sanction of not dismissing without reasonable cause. The broad picture is, that, under the Bill, provided an employer keeps his quota, he has the same right to dismiss a disabled man as a non-disabled man. This is not a Bill for fixing particular individuals on an employer, but for saving that employers must have on their books a certain percentage of disabled men. If dismissal takes an employer below his quota, that is made an offence. The employer has to keep his quota and, prima facie, if he dismisses a man and it takes him below his quota, he has done something which is wrong only if he did it without reasonable cause, in which case he can be brought before the court and prosecuted.

Mr. Messer: What is reasonable cause?

The Attorney-General: That, of course, is the point to which I shall, successfully or unsuccessfully, try to address myself. The first attempt to answer it was to try to define "reasonable" in the Bill. The suggestion was that you should be able to dismiss for the same reason as you would dismiss anybody else. I do not care for that. It sounds all right on the face of it, but if it was simply a case of redundancy it would not be reasonable to take the last disabled man in your quota and dismiss him, although redundancy is a perfectly good reason for dismissing a man in the ordinary course of things. That contention breaks down. It would be loading the dice in favour of an employer who might not be acting reasonably. The second suggestion concerned when a man's handicap had substantially increased. If the handicap has increased so much that a man is incapable of any contribution, or only a negligible contribution, obviously

he has entirely passed out of the idea of the Bill, but again I do not care——

Mr. Woodburn: Is his pension automatically increased?

The Attorney-General: That should be put to my right hon. Friend the Minsiter of Pensions, but I know that the pension does not go down if the man becomes able to earn more. When one analyses the suggestion, I do not think it would be on the whole to the advantage of the cause which we have always at heart. Now my hon. Friend asks "What is reasonable?" What I can say is this: whereas it may be, as I think it is, proved, in this case, impossible to define by words in an Act of Parliament what is reasonable, various judges and magistrates have had to base their decisions on the point, on the circumstances and the merits of individual cases, and upon the facts as brought before them, and they have done so without arousing any undue dissatisfaction in the community as a whole. It will be for the courts to decide. If my right hon. Friend's Department, after a matter has been looked at by the committee, decide that it is a case which should go to court, the court will have to decide: Was this dismissal without reasonable cause?

Mr. Messer: Does the Bill give the man the right to go to the Committee if he can show the Minister he has got a right of appeal?

The Attorney-General: This is not giving a right to the man. This is a sanction by the prosecution of the employer if he puts himself below his quota without reasonable cause.

Mr. Bellenger: What happens to the man? Does he get reinstated?

The Attorney-General: No.

Mr. Bellenger: So he suffers any way.

The Attorney-General: As I said, there have to be sanctions——

Mr. Bellenger: Under the Essential Work Order that man would have to be reinstated. Would the Attorney-General apply himself to that point?

The Attorney-General: I cannot deal with more than one point at once. I shall come to the Essential Work Order in due course. If a man is dismissed in breach of contract he has an action in damages, but the whole point of the Sub-


section is to put a sanction on an employer. Prima facie an employer has the right to dismiss, but if the dismissal takes him below his quota he is liable to be prosecuted if it can be shown that he did it without reasonable cause. I think the Committee will agree with that as a reasonable scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) asked about the Essential Work Order. I think the answer would be that in so far as the Essential Work Order applies to persons in a certain industry then it would apply, would it not, to the disabled persons whether they were within the quota or not, just as much as to other people? The Essential Work Order is, as it were, a scheme which descends on certain industries and certain people in them.

Mr. Shinwell: It may not exist then.

The Attorney-General: No, but assuming that it did I think anything would have to be done under it in the way I have mentioned. I hope it will be felt that it is much, more satisfactory to leave this question of "reasonable cause" to be decided by the Court on the particular facts of each case. That is the type of problem with which they are familiar. I am not sure whether the Amendment would rule out the prosecution, but I think it is quite clear that if we are to keep, as we wish to, a sanction of taking an employer before the Court it would be inappropriate to provide for an appeal to the Minister. I think the satisfactory thing is to leave the prosecution provisions as they stand and leave it to the Court to decide in each particular case what is "reasonable cause."

Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. and learned Friend has explicitly declared the impracticability of defining "reasonable cause" in the Bill. That may well be. I gather that the Committee would be in agreement with that view, but it is precisely because of the difficulty of a clear definition as to what "reasonable cause" means in the Bill itself that some provision requires to be made to enable a man who may be dismissed without reasonable cause which is not apparent to the Ministry of Labour, to appeal against the action of his employer. That is as I understand the position.
Let me furnish an illustration of what might happen. It is perfectly true, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, that we are dealing with a sanction. How does that arise and how may it arise? An employer is employing a number of disabled men on the basis of a quota but he decides for some reason or other to dismiss one of the disabled employees, but in order to come within the terms of the quota he employs another disabled man, so that he complies with the terms of the quota, and so far he is protected against prosecution. That is quite clear, but the disabled man who has been discharged—[Interruption.] My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) is a little precipitate. Perhaps he will be good enough to listen to the substance of my argument. I repeat that the disabled man who has been dismissed may be of opinion that his dismissal was not due to a reasonable cause. Now the employer is protected but not the man except in so far—as the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale points out—as he remains on the register. But remaining on the register does not necessarily imply immediate employment. Of course not. So for the time being the man is left high and dry.
Surely in those circumstances, as we are all without exception so anxious to do the right thing by these unfortunate men, it would be legitimate to provide for some means of appeal. There is at present no means of appeal, and whether proceedings are to be instituted against an employer depends on the view taken by the Ministry. The view taken by the Ministry may be that rigid hard official rule which is quite irrelevant to the circumstances in which the man finds himself. If, as I have said, that is the correct position, or is likely to be the correct position—I am anxious to deal with the matter fairly—I cannot understand why the Ministry of Labour should offer any objection to some form of appeal. I am bound to say that I can hardly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) to ask for direct appeal to the Minister. I do not think that is the appropriate appeal machinery for dealing with such cases. It is difficult. The Minister is clogged up with all sorts of responsibilities, and in any event he would require to delegate the matter to some other body. I think that something


pretty much like the hardship tribunal that operates during the war might be appropriate to the circumstances.
At any rate I put it no higher than this, that in all the circumstances it would offer some consolation, however slender, to a man who is unfortunately situated—the knowledge that he had this right if an employer is disposed to victimise him. That is a harsh word I know, but we know that in certain circumstances an employer may conceive a dislike for a man even if he is disabled, and be inclined to dismiss him. We ought not to ignore such a possibility, because do not let us forget that in the case of a disabled man an occasional outburst is much more likely than in the case of a man who is completely normal. He comes back from the battlefield, maybe after fighting in the air or on the seas, with a touch of neurosis—who can tell—and he may "fly off the handle." Indeed, it is likely that kind of thing may happen, and his employer may not be disposed to care very much for that kind of thing, and accordingly dismiss him. These factors have to be taken into account and it would be some consolation to this man to know that if the employer conceives a dislike, whether well founded or not, he had the right to go to somebody and appeal, throw himself on the mercy of the Court, so to speak, and at any rate be assured of reasonable and sympathetic consideration. May I beg my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, whose sympathies are well known in matters of this kind, as indeed the sympathies of all hon. Members are known in matters of this kind, to give this matter further consideration, and if they cannot agree to it now, to see whether on the Report stage they can agree on a form of words?

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: It seems to me that the hon. Member has gone outside the purpose of this Bill, which is that a certain percentage shall be employed and not to fix a person on a definite employer. It also appears to me very relevant that my hon. Friend has not considered that another disabled man might be fitted into that employer's establishment who may be more suited for that particular job. I gather that the Ministry of Labour are not contemplating that any one of them will be out of work for very many days, so I

really cannot see that any great benefit will accrue by forcing a particular man to remain in a particular job. It seems to me that that will not really help the man any more than anybody else.

Mr. Woodburn: I think the Government are responsible to some extent for this misunderstanding by the wording of the Sub-section, because they have made a personal thing of something that is a percentage. According to my reading of the Bill if five men have to be employed in a particular firm and one of these five is dismissed without reasonable cause then the employer comes under this Clause. If there are six disabled men employed in that firm, that is one above the quota, and if the sixth man is dismissed the employer does not come under the Clause. If this is a question of dealing with the unreasonableness of dismissing injured men it should apply to all disabled men, not to a percentage. I think it should not be dealt with under this part of the Bill. The Government should consider it as a general rule which applies to wrongful dismissal of all injured men, whether inside or outside the quota.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: That is the definite underlying intention of my Amendment. I find it very difficult to put it into the right phrase.

Mr. Hogg: I listened with attention and sympathy to what the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) said. I think the measure of support which these Amendments have had shows the extent to which the consciousness of this problem has burned into people's minds. But I believe sincerely that that feeling, natural and inevitable as it is after the years we have been going through, is misleading them in this particular case. We are familiar, and have been for centuries, in one form or another with this particular problem. The courts have always found it impossible to enforce what they call in their legal language specific performance of a contract of employment. That is to say, where the relationship is unhappy and one of the parties, be it employer or employee, breaks the contract they have always in the end been driven to accept the inevitable, that the only remedy must be a money remedy, not tying the employee to the employer or the employer to the employee. It is not possible to turn the contract of employ-


ment into something which can be specifically enforced without, sooner or later, reintroducing slavery into this country. I was interested to notice that on this very point the Tomlinson Committee itself made this observation, which seems to me completely sound and completely to dispose of various arguments which have been put forward. In paragraph 9, on the general question of re-settlement, the Report says:
The Committee wish to emphasise at this stage of their report that the only satisfactory form of resettlement for a disabled person is employment which he can take and keep on his merits as a worker in normal competition with his fellows.
That seems to me to be inevitable. One may want to protect him in other ways, by tying a particular worker to a particular employer, but, although one may be actuated by the best of motives in that, I feel sure that the protection so afforded will be absolutely illusive. Sooner or later the contract must be severed, and the only remedy, if there is to be a remedy, must be a money remedy or a criminal sanction. Any attempt to render permanent a contract of service will be an attempt to do what we have always found impossible.

Mr. Silverman: I cannot help feeling that the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has rather misinterpreted what I, at any rate, understand to be the law. It is true that the courts have always refused, and rightly, for the reasons which have been given, to tie a particular man to a particular employer or a particular employment, or to give what is called specific performance of a contract for service; but that does not mean that the law has not taken to itself powers to enforce contracts for service. There are some very interesting examples under the Essential Work Order, the object of which is to protect persons in their employment. While it has been found quite impossible, so far at any rate, to compel an employer actually to avail himself of the services of his workmen, it has been said "Very well, you may please yourself whether you get anything for your money or not, but unless you can satisfy the National Service Officer, or, if you are dissatisfied with his decision, the Minister, through the National Advisory Council, that you are entitled to rid yourself of the man, you shall continue to pay him his wages."

There is a whole series of decisions about that, and there can be no controversy about it.
For very good reasons, it has not been said, although, it may yet be said, that the employer shall actually put the man back at his bench and give him work to do, but the law says, "You shall not get rid of that man except for good reasons, which the Minister approves, and if you seek to do so you shall get no benefit out of it, and the man shall get precisely the same remuneration as he would get if he were working." There seems to be no reason why that kind of protection should not be available for men who get the benefit of this Bill. There is no slavery about it—at least, no more slavery than the economic system under which we are living imposes upon all of us. There is no reason why the man should be compelled to work; there is a sufficient economic sanction, because if he does not want to work he will have to starve. Also, there is no sanction to make the employer carry out his general obligation to keep the man usefully employed. There is no reason, however, why there should not be upon the employer the sanction that, once his liability to employ a certain person is established, he shall not get rid of his obligation by a money payment. I do not see the point of the last speech, unless it was intended to provide a kind of escape clause whereby obligations under this Bill could be evaded.

Sir I. Fraser: I beg the Committee to consider this matter from the point of view of the human relationship between the employer and the disabled man. This Bill is not for war-time only, but for all time. I hope that it will not be very long before some little part of the freedom of decent employers and decent workpeople to agree to work together may be returned. What is the reason for the Essential Work Order? It is surely that the national emergency and need require men to be directed to particular places of work and obliged to stay there. There must be a quid pro quo. A man cannot be made to leave his employment if he is not free to leave if he wants to. There is reason to hope that that unnatural, embarrassing relationship between employers and employees is transitory. We do not want it to apply in this Bill. Where the Essential Work Order applies in a


factory, it will apply to disabled men who happen to be in the factory, with its merits and its demerits, but do not make it apply where it does not apply already. Good will is at the basis of this Measure. We do not want to set up a machine which will keep the disabled man watching his employer, to catch him out and bring an action against him. I think that the Attorney-General is right here, and I hope that, not only because of the merits of his argument, but because some of us are so anxious to get through the Clauses which are on the Paper to-day, hon. Members will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I think the Committee was much impressed by what the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) had to say. I was also impressed by many things which other people have said. I still think that difficulties may be made by employers, and indeed by employees who are disabled, but I think that, with reasonable judgment and good will, they can be got over. Therefore, I ask permission to withdraw my Amendment.

Mr. Bellenger: I want it to be under-stood that some of us, at least, on this side are not at all satisfied with what the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) said, and that after listening to the Attorney-General we are not satisfied with the conditions. This Bill was introduced to give preferential employment to a certain class, namely, disabled persons. Now some hon. Members wish to limit it to one particular section out of that class. Once we give that right to employment which we are attempting to give in this Bill, it is not good enough to say that the ordinary relationship between employer and employed will be sufficient. [Interruption.] The hon. Member would like many things: so would I, but we have admitted that under the present economic system it is not possible for all disabled persons to enjoy the benefits enjoyed by the fit person. I think it is most unsatisfactory that a disabled man can be discharged by an employer who does not like the look of his face, and that, merely because the employer fills up his quota immediately, with somebody more amenable, the discharged man has only one possible remedy, as I understand it, namely, to obtain damages through the High Court. [An HON. MEMBER: "Only

if he can prove wrongful dismissal, even then."] Yes. Is that what we mean when we talk in such grandiloquent language about giving the returned soldiers, sailors and airmen a fair deal? This Debate has exposed a good deal of the falsity of the arguments which have been put up by hon. Members opposite, who say that they want to see that ex-Servicemen get a fair deal. If the ex-Serviceman who is disabled happens to be a trade union secretary and becomes a little inconvenient to his employer, his employer can get rid of him at once, and fill up the quota with some other disabled man who is more amenable. I am not at all satisfied.

The Attorney-General: I am anxious to co-operate, as we all are, in getting through these proceedings to-day, but I must repudiate the suggestion that there has been any sort of concealment or any attempt by anybody to pretend that this Bill is any more than it is. If anybody has still in mind the Tomlinson Report, on which this Bill is based, and the Second Reading speeches, he will realise that we made it as clear as we could that the solution which we were putting before Parliament was based on a quota system, and not on giving the individual disabled man a right to permanent employment or a right in excess of his ordinary contractual employment by a particular employer who happened to have taken him. There has never been any suggestion from this bench, or from the benches behind me, that that was the solution; and I honestly believe that if Members will read the Report and the speeches that were made they will agree that if they had such a misconception it was no fault of anybody here. I agree with the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) that if people were going to give disabled men a sort of freehold of employment it ought to apply over the whole field, and not merely to the last man in the quota. To be logical you would have to do that. Once we get to that position, my hon. Friends will realise how impracticable that would be. We believe that this solution is far more in the interests of the disabled man than an attempt to impose by law some contract which in law cannot be good. We give disabled men collectively the right to have a certain share of the employment of the country, on ordinary terms and on ordinary conditions.

Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. and learned Friend, I am sorry to say, appears to have completely misunderstood the case which was put to the Committee. So far as I could gather, no hon. Member on this side suggested that a disabled man should be permanently employed by an employer, that he should have a freehold in employment with a particular employer. Indeed, it would be most impracticable. But the argument arose, be it noted, from an attempt to define what was meant by the words "reasonable cause."
That is the sole purpose of this argument. My right hon. Friend himself admitted that it was difficult to define precisely the meaning of these words in this relation. In these circumstances the argument developed, and it was suggested that we should try to afford to the men concerned some measure of security against the employer who would reasonably dismiss a man even though he complied with the terms of the quota arrangement. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), who has always concerned himself with the position of the ex-Service men in the past and is concerned about their position in the future, is anxious to return to the happy relationships between employers and men by which, no doubt, he means——

Sir I. Fraser: I will tell the hon. Member what I mean.

Mr. Shinwell: —the right of the employer, whenever he feels disposed, to dismiss the man.

Sir I Fraser: Order the employee to leave whenever he does not like the employer.

Mr. Shinwell: The poor, unfortunate disabled man is to have the empty consolation of being put on the register.

Major Manningham-Buller: That is the whole point of the Bill.

Mr. Shinwell: I am not responsible for the Bill. My point is that it is really for the Government to say whether there is anything in the Bill or not. They present the Bill to the House on the assumption that there is some substance in it and the House give it a Second Reading. What I am about to say is not strictly relevant, but let it be noted that hon. and right hon. Members opposite all declare

with hon. Members on this side, that we must give a distinct preference to the disabled man who has suffered as the result of the war. But now, when it "comes down to brass tacks," and we are considering the realities of the situation and how best we can afford that measure of security for these war disabled men, so as to safeguard them from the blast of unemployment, we get these plausible, specious arguments about happy relationships between employers and men. Some of us have seen something of these happy relationships and—I say this to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), who speaks usually with great sense and sensibility—in spite of the suggestion that we might impose some measure of slavery on the men, with all the desire we have to permit individual liberty, sometimes a measure of so-called slavery is preferable to being thrown on to the scrap heap. I wonder whether hon. Members realise this. It is not so present to them as it appears to us in discussing the matter from these Benches. We who can put ourselves in the places of these men must not only do the very best for them, but safeguard them, even if we have to get rid of silly traditions. We have to get rid of a lot of silly traditions in economic matters after this war is over; a lot of things will have to be consigned to the dustbin. I am in favour of safeguarding these men in matters of this kind. It is not very difficult to define the precise wording and how we would constitute the appeal board.
What is the actual position? You can in certain circumstances prosecute the employer. That is a sanction, and no doubt it will terrify the employer up to a point. It does not always follow that the sanction will be employed, because it depends upon whether the national advisory council so decides. You have to take all the circumstances into account. The matter is referred to the advisory council and then referred to the Minister. If action is taken against a recalcitrant employer, he will be penalised and will pay a fine, and the man will have the consolation of remaining on the register. Let the Parliamentary Secretary say that, if the tribunal finds for these men, they should be given a money payment. That is the thing for which the hon. Member for Oxford asks. They should give to the man, if he is dismissed, something to keep


him going until, as a result of being on the register, he is again absorbed into employment. If that is done, it will satisfy hon. Members on this side of the Committee. Is that fair? Will hon. Members opposite object to that? Of course not. I challenge them to get up and say that it would be unreasonable to have some money solatium for the men concerned. With all their desire to protect ex-Service men let them now say that. I shall be delighted to afford them the opportunity, and already I see some of them are now about to embark on the adventure. Now is their opportunity to say it.

Mr. Hogg: Mr. Hogg rose——

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Messer.

Mr. Messer: I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give an undertaking that he will consider this matter. It is very evident that feeling has been aroused, and the more one thinks the matter over the more one is convinced that something should be done. It is assumed that these unemployed people would come under the Unemployment Insurance Act, the same as anybody else. When a man is discharged for a reasonable cause and he has no opportunity of appealing against his dismissal, he will have his benefit stopped by the employment exchange. If he has been discharged for alleged had time-keeping or other reason he cannot draw unemployment pay. He can have the right to go before the tribunal. But what is more important is that the Attorney-General said that it is a matter between the Ministry and the employer. The man does not come into it at all. Is the Ministry, every time somebody is discharged, going to inquire into the case to see whether it is one in which they can take action? Some provision should be made for the man to appeal and to be provided with the opportunity of taking proceedings. I ask the Minister to give an undertaking in this matter or, if necessary, it should be taken to a Division.

Mr. Tomlinson: We have been discussing for a long time two entirely different propositions dealing with two entirely different sets of circumstances. In the first instance, the question arises as to the implication of the quota system and the sanction which is to be applied in the event of the employer not engaging his quota. That is where the question comes in of whether or not the individual is rightfully

or wrongfully dismissed. If the man is employing above his quota, he is at liberty to dismiss a disabled man just as he is at liberty to dismiss an able-bodied man. The disabled man has all the available resources of the able-bodied man to meet the employer. There is a sanction purely and simply to compel the employer to employ his quota of disabled people.
The question which my hon. Friend introduced into it comes in under Clause 5. It is the same thing but it has a different point. It clearly shows, and there is no attempt to burke it, that an unscrupulous employer could, by engaging six disabled men, and if five were his quota, get rid of any one of the six at any time he wished. Although it is open for that to be done, I hope that there will be a sanction, greater than any of the sanctions of the law, which will prevent that being done, and that is, the good sense of the employers of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know it may be asking a lot. I have had as much experience as anybody in this Committee on the way workers can be treated, but I say from this Box that if there is not to be a difference in the attitude both of employers and of all others in connection with this question, then this Bill has no hope of success, even if it hay compulsion behind it. After meeting a good many of the employers of the country and the representatives of trades unions I am convinced that this Bill can be made to work with the minimum of sanctions imposed, and I believe that, by pressing this point with a view to making it watertight on the lines that have been suggested by my hon. Friends, we should do more harm than good to the implementation of the objects for which the Bill has been framed.

Mr. Silverman: I follow what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said, and everybody will give him credit for the best intentions in the world. I am sure that he is doing a good job and we all appreciate it, but it does not explain why he should miss, as I think he has done, what is being pressed on his attention. He says that we should leave it to the good sense of employers. The Bill does not do that. It imposes a sanction, with a great many difficulties in the way, and ultimately it says that, if the employer commits a breach of the law, he shall be fined or imprisoned. That sanction is in


the Bill. We are saying that we ought not to be content with a sanction that merely penalises the employer but should have a further sanction which confers rights on the men. There is no reason why, if an employer commits a breach of this Clause and discontinues the employment of a man who, under the law, he ought to continue to employ, he should not only be subject to a fine or other penalty but should be under the obligation of continuing the man's wages until the man finds another job. What is the matter with that? Why should the Parliamentary Secretary resist it? It is not a question of not having sanctions. You have sanctions, but you have not the proper sanctions. Give the workman the advantage. If his employment is stopped and ought to be continued, treat the employer as you treat employers under the Essential Work Order. Make him continue the man's wages until he puts himself right under his legal obligation.

Major Manningham-Buller: I would like to ask one question. Is it not the case that the consensus of medical opinion in this country is strongly opposed to drawing any distinction between disabled persons and fit persons with regard to terms of employment, believing it not to be in the interest of the disabled person? If the answer is in the affirmative, then the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) appears to be contending for something which the medical profession do not consider to be of advantage to the disabled. I would point out to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) that the Essential Work Order is not of universal application. What he is seeking is to alter the general law of master and servant, as it applies throughout the country. So far as this Clause is concerned, it is merely to provide what doctors, as I understand it, desire to see, namely, that the disabled person shall get a chance like the fit man in employment.

Mr. Silverman: And lose it next week?

Major Manningham-Buller: Let us remember that the disabled person is on the register and that the employment exchange can send him next day to an employer who is bound by law to fill up his quota. That gives a preferential position in regard to securing employment.

Amendment negatived.

The Deputy-Chairman: Rear-Admiral Beamish.

Major Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order, Mr. Williams. Are you calling my Amendment in page 6, line 41, to leave out from "person," to the end of line 4, in page 7, and insert:
without the consent of the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions"?

The Deputy-Chairman: No.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I beg to move, in page 6, line 46, to leave out "four," and to insert "seven."
I want to preserve the balance between people who are to get employment under this Bill and those who are to employ them. It struck me that the word "four" indicates too short a period. As hon. Members know, employers and other people are sometimes sent notices which they get four or five days later, and as the Clause reads at present such an employer would subject himself to prosecution because he had not carried out his duties. I suggest that a longer period of seven days be given.

The Attorney-General: We would advise the Committee to accept this Amendment. We think that four days is rather a short time.

Amendment agreed to.

The Deputy-Chairman: I want to apologise to the hon. and gallant Member for Daventry (Major Manningham-Buller) for not having called him before.

Major Manningham-Buller: I am not quite sure, Mr. Williams, what Amendment you are now calling me to move.

The Deputy-Chairman: It was a mistake on my part. I should have called the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment in page 6, line 41. Obviously, I cannot go back now but if his next Amendment is accepted his previous Amendment will have to be inserted at another stage.

Major Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 7, line 6, to leave out from "the," to "until," in line no, and to insert:
Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions that such consent has been given shall be sufficient evidence thereof.


I wish to thank you Mr. Williams for giving me this opportunity.
I think it will save time if I cover the two points contained in this Amendment and the previous Amendment which I had wished to move. The first point is, I think, one of some substance. When an employer commits an offence under Subsection (5) the matter has then to go before an advisory committee for them to go into it and to give the employer an opportunity of being heard and then report to the Minister. Before a prosecution can take place the Minister gives his consent. Hon. Members will see that at the end of Clause 9, it is provided that a certificate shall be produced at the subsequent trial before the court, not merely saying that the Minister has consented to the prosecution but that the matter has been before the advisory committee, and that they have heard the accused or have given him an opportunity of being heard. That certificate would seem to say that the accused had been found guilty by the advisory committee, otherwise he could not have been there. This seems to offend against the ordinary principles of law, which provide that a conviction shall not be assumed before the accused is found guilty. There is a precedent to some extent for the production of a certificate in the Prices of Goods Act, 1939, but that does not provide for the admission of any such certificate, and I have put down the Amendment to delete the words that apply to the production of a certificate. The further point is: Whose consent is necessary for the prosecution? I suggest the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions, instead of the Minister.

The Attorney-General: First of all, on the question of there being a certificate, that is common form wherever Parliament puts in a condition precedent to prosecution. For example, the fiat of the Attorney-General must be obtained, which is quite common. You have either to have the actual fiat before the court or evidence that conditions precedent have been fulfilled. The court is entitled to be satisfied that that condition has been carried out. My hon. and gallant Friend's other point is this: If you provide that a case shall be considered by a committee before it comes to the court then the man will start at a disadvantage because the court will say, "This man has been before the

committee and they, at any rate, thought it was a case for prosecution." If there was anything in that one would be in a dilemma. Obviously, it is desirable that before prosecutions are launched there should be careful consideration of the matter and it would be most unfortunate if that careful consideration—which is to the advantage of the people as a whole in that it prevents unjustified prosecutions—were to be regarded as creating unfairness to the man against whom proceedings are being taken in that the tribunals would say, "He has probably done it." I will give an example with which the Committee will be familiar. Every man who appears at assizes or at the Old Bailey has been committed by a magistrate or magistrates on evidence as being a proper case to go before the judge. Although all that is known to everybody it is out of the picture. No juryman, judge or anybody else begins to say, "This man has been committed, therefore, there is probably something in it."
The fact is that the people of this country are very fair-minded. Where a man stands his trial the prosecution have to prove their case. I do not believe that the fact that a man has been committed by a magistrate prejudices him in any way before a jury. I do not believe that a prosecution which has had to have my sanction or the sanction of the Director of Public Prosecutions—which means that we have to give it very careful consideration—enters into anybody's mind or prejudices the man. I do not believe that the fact that there are these safeguards, which are of benefit to all, will prejudice the man in the least. I am quite certain it would not be a case for decision by myself or the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is given in connection with serious offences, but in this kind of area I think it is right that the prosecution should be in the hands of the Ministry, who can be criticised as in other matters. I can see that it might be felt that the fact that the committee had previously considered the man's case might prejudice his case, but in practice I am quite sure that it would not do so. Therefore, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will withdraw his Amendment and leave the Clause as it is.

Major Lloyd: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General seems to have suggested that there is little or no difference between putting a matter before


himself or the Director of Public Prosecutions and putting it before an advisory committee, who then send it on to the Ministry. It seems to me that there is quite a substantial difference, because everybody realises that the superior knowledge and expert ability of my right hon. and learned Friend or the Director of Public Prosecutions would not prejudice a man when he came up for trial. Everybody would be satisfied that expert knowledge had been applied to the subject. We have no guarantee that the advisory councils will proceed anything like as far. They will do their best and try to be fair, but they will not be anything like so efficient and in consequence, probably, not so fair as in the cases put by the Attorney-General.

Major Manningham-Buller: I have listened with attention to what the Attorney-General has had to say, but I am not personally satisfied that the two cases he cited were analagous in any material respect. I would ask the Committee to consider the Price of Goods Act, 1939, where a similar procedure was adopted and a prosecution was instituted without any certificate of this sort being produced in any court which has to try the offence. I ask the Minister to consider whether he will remove this possible injustice to a fair trial, and merely make provision that the prosecution shall have to secure the consent of the Minister and leave it at that. If he can say that the weaknesses through these other conditions have been satisfied, and that there will be an absolutely fair trial, with no question of the court which tries the case misunderstanding the accused, I should be quite content.

The Attorney-General: Certainly.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: I do not understand this extreme solicitude. Why should a court in some cases be bound by the decision of a committee? It surely ought to be the decision of the court? Why cannot the ordinary court be trusted?

Major Manningham-Buller: The petty sessions, before which these cases come, are not courts of appeal. They are courts trying the matter for the first time. The danger, as I see it, may be remote, but it is that some people on that court may not appreciate the real significance of this

certificate and might then, it seems to me, come to try the case as if the matter had already been determined, as if the man had already been found guilty and all that they had to do was to impose a fine. I would like it made quite clear that if any employer who commits an offence is being tried the justices will see to it that his trial is fair.

Mr. Lawson: Why should there be this extreme care and why should special arrangements and provisions be made in this Bill for one kind of case when the same provision is not made in other respects? I cannot understand it.

Mr. Bevin: I will certainly look into the legal points raised by the Attorney-General, but I would like to bring the Committee back to the realities of the Clause. It was put in because we promised, as a Ministry, that we would not rush people off to the court. We gave a solemn undertaking to industry, on both sides, that before we decided there should be a prosecution, we would use the advisory committees, because 90 per cent. of these cases are settled without going to a court. What the employers want—and it was asked for by them for their protection—was that employers should not be rushed off to court without the matter being investigated by the joint Committee, just like the court of referees and the rest. It is a machine to try to settle, by this means of a tribunal, and I hope by compromise and adjustment, and to make sure that, when we went to the courts, we should satisfy the courts that our procedure had been carried out. We have to certify that we have actually carried out the procedure laid down in other paragraphs of the Bill. If there is some legal point about which I am not clear—because I never was a lawyer and I hate being confused and do not like confusing others—I am quite willing to look into the legal part of the Bill. But I want the Committee to understand that it was put in as one of those illogical but commonsense methods which work. That was the idea behind it.

Mr. Buchanan: I think hon. Gentlemen on the other side are really placing too much emphasis on this. After all, if this is not put in and an employer is guilty there is nothing to hinder these people from saying that the man coming before the court was before


the advisory committee, and using that as an argument why the man's punishment should be heavy. It is constantly done in the courts. As it is, before anybody prosecuting can say that, he must produce his evidence to the court that such and such a thing has been done, and, far from being a handicap to the employer, it is in most cases a help. In some cases, not many, under the Essential Work Order, we see where prosecution has taken place, although the advisory committee took the person's side. Here, if it is insisted on going to court, it means that the Ministry of Labour can never take action where an advisory committee has taken the view that the employer has acted properly. For my part, I think it is not a bad procedure.

Mr. Woods: Although a promise has now been made that this point will be looked into, I would make an appeal to the Minister regarding the advisory committees and suggest that the prosecutions under the Prices of Goods Act have not in any way been prejudiced by the fact that there have been proper inquiries.

Mr. Craik Henderson: I am rather worried by a remark made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). He said that under the Essential Work Order in some cases a report was made which was adverse to prosecution being taken but that in spite of that the Minister had gone ahead.

Mr. Buchanan: No, the Minister has not gone ahead. What happened was that the Procurator-General in Scotland went ahead when the appeal tribunal had decided in favour of the man.

Mr. Craik Henderson: I wanted to be clear that, in these cases, there is no possibility, if the report of the Committee is favourable to the employer, of the Minister having power to go ahead with the prosecution. There is nothing in the Clause, apparently, to prevent that, but I take it for granted that it is the case that, if the report was favourable, no prosecution would follow.

Major Manningham-Buller: In view of what the Minister has said I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 10.—(Determination of employers' quotas.)

Mr. Hogg: I beg to move, in page 7, line 25, at the end, to insert:
and
(c) a special lower percentage where it appears to the Minister that a lower percentage other than the standard percentage ought to be assigned on the ground of the exceptionally grave disability of the disabled person which involves exceptional expense adjustment or services to render his employment possible.
I do so in the absence of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). People have different degrees of disability, and it was thought that it might be possible under this Bill for an employer who employs his quota of disabled men, to choose out of that quota and for the purposes of that quota, a number of men who were relatively lightly disabled. The result would be that the most severely disabled would still be as prejudiced as they would have been without the passage of the Bill. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that, where this takes place, it would be open to the Minister to open a second register, including only those who were so severely disabled that they were at a disadvantage as between themselves and ordinarily disabled men.

Mr. Tomlinson: With the object of this Amendment we are in entire sympathy, but there is power to deal with the point, in a later Clause, by which application can be made to the committee for a change in the percentage owing to the fact that exceptional circumstances have arisen. We should regard it as an exceptional circumstance, if arrangements had been made placing very severely disabled persons at a disadvantage. I might point out to the hon. Member that we are quite certain we can deal with the matter under the powers in the Bill.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: I think the principle is a good one, and extremely disabled men should receive consideration, but I am warning the Minister, as a member of a committee which had to deal with this matter, that it is a very difficult thing to work. I do not envy him the job, but I hope he will be successful.

Mr. Hogg: Having regard to the assurance of the Minister that it will be possible to meet the objects of this Amendment by action under another part of the Bill, I


beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Bellenger: I beg to move, in page 7, line 28, after "with," to insert:
the national advisory council to be established under this Act and.
I rise with some hope that my Amendment will be accepted, in view of the fact that the Minister has accepted some, at least, of the proposals put to him by the other side, and so far we have not had any here. Under Clause 10 (3) the Minister has power to specify, by order, any special percentage, after he has consulted certain people, and, as the Bill is now drawn, he has considerable latitude as to whom he should consult. One of my reasons for supporting the very large powers given to the Minister is that he is setting up a Central Advisory Council and District Committees. I hope he will make them fully representative. If he is setting up these bodies, why should he not consult the Central Advisory Council as well as the organisations of employers and workers on such vital matters? I hope sincerely that the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I should like to support my hon. Friend opposite, not with any intention of making difficulties for the Minister or the Ministry but simply on the analogy, as I see it, of having something in the nature of a neutral chairman or an umpire in the form of the Advisory Council to be set up under the Bill. It seems to me that something of a balance will be required, and that if the matter is referred solely to employers and workers they may be a very much longer time in arriving at a reasonable and amicable conclusion than if they had the assistance of the Advisory Council.

Mr. Tomlinson: I do not want my hon. Friend to think that we are unsympathetic because we cannot accept the Amendment as it appears on the Paper. It is not intended that the Advisory Council shall be ignored, but we feel that consultation with the employers and workers is not only desirable but essential in view of their particular knowledge of the trades that are being discussed. We feel that if it were necessary to follow the procedure suggested in the Amend-

ment it would lead to bottlenecks in the administration. Provision is made for reports from the Advisory Council periodically, and those reports will be on matters which have been discussed with employers and workers in the districts, so that the advice of the Advisory Council will be available to the Minister after the consultation has taken place. At any time it is within their jurisdiction to make representations to him if that which my hon. Friend fears may be possible should actually happen on any occasion. I hope that the hon. Member will accept that explanation.

Mr. Bellenger: I am not entirely satisfied. I quite agree that the Minister should consult employers and workers where he wants to make special regulations. All I ask is that he should not ignore this Advisory Council. As the Bill is drafted, there is no provision that these matters shall be brought to the attention of the Advisory Council before they are decided by the employers' and workers' organisations. The Parliamentary Secretary gave me the impression that he is in sympathy with my Amendment but could not accept it in its present form. I should have great satisfaction if he would consult with me between now and the Report stage with a view, if possible, to incorporating in the Bill something to meet the point I have just made.

Mr. Tomlinson: I will look into the matter, but at this moment I think it is really covered.

Mr. Bellenger: With that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 12.—(Appropriation of vacancies in certain employments to registered persons only.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. J. J. Lawson: I should like to have some explanation from the Minister about this Clause. The Committee will notice that this Clause deals with the appropriation of vacancies in certain employment to registered persons only, and I would like the Minister to tell us what


is in his mind in this matter. Does he mean to apply this at once or in stages? There will be men who have been called up from such jobs as lift attendants and messengers, and if all such jobs have been appropriated under this Clause they will not get them back. I suppose the object is to take the matter in stages, but I should be much obliged if the Minister would give us an explanation as to what particular employments are going to be taken over wholly for disabled persons.

Mr. Bevin: We decided on this principle of designated employment for two reasons. One is that it will help us to deal with certain establishments which employ lift men but which come below the quota. It may be that although only a few people are employed we can designate the lift man's job as suitable for a disabled person. It is a job which I have always regarded personally as unsuitable for young people. This will enable us to designate jobs for people who are semi-disabled, though the jobs would not come in the quota. The other reason is this. You may have a big firm which is quite willing to designate such jobs and not count them in its quota. It cuts both ways. We get the chance of designating employment solely for disabled people who cannot be trained for anything else, jobs we should not get in establishments below the quota of 20, and we also get the advantage of the goodwill of firms who are willing to take on disabled men for such jobs and not count them in the figure at all. That is a great gain which cuts both ways. I think it is a very big asset in an area of disablement which will be extremely useful.

Mr. Woods: Could not such cases be dealt with under previous Clauses?

Mr. Bevin: I do not designate an industry; I designate a job in an industry.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: May it not be that some of these jobs have been held by men who were not too strong, but who in spite of that were called up? When they return home will they be able to resume their jobs?

Mr. Bevin: I think I can give an assurance that in cases like that I should not put a disabled person in competition with another man who happened to be physically not up to standard. After all, that is a form of disablement too.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I only want to intervene in this matter in a friendly manner to call attention to a memorandum which I have received. That memorandum says:
The object of the Bill is the very fine one of fitting disabled persons to earn their livelihood on their own merits and not on charity. They are to be fitted into jobs which, despite their disability, they can do as well as anybody else. In that connection there is just one point in Clause 12, of the Bill to which attention ought to be directed. That Clause appropriates certain jobs for disabled people only and nobody else can be employed in them. The jobs in question may be lift attendants, messengers, and so on. It seems that the disabled people who will get those jobs will be employed not because they are disabled but because they are able to do the work. Reserving that work for disabled people only seems, however, to imply that they would not secure or hold the job on their merits. That seems on the face of it to be inconsistent with the general purpose of the Bill.
In view of that memorandum I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would say a word or two on that point in order to dispose of any misunderstanding about the Clause.

Mr. Bevin: I though I had made that clear when I spoke before. Jobs will be designated which these men can do, and so they will hold them on their merits. Some people seem to assume that because jobs are designated for disabled men those are the only jobs into which disabled men can be drafted. That is wrong. I shall have to keep all this legislation in mind when dealing with this matter.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Could the Minister tell us how that can be reconciled with encouraging men to fit themselves for other jobs?

Mr. Bevin: You do not designate the man, you designate the job. Suppose a man is disabled, and you put him to work as a lift attendant, he can still go on and be rehabilitated. If he gets well he can pass on to a better job, and the lift man's job will be free for another disabled man.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 13.—(Provisions for interpretation, etc., of preceding Sections.)

Sir Joseph Lamb: I beg to move, in page 10, line 7, to leave out "or a relationship similar thereto."
I have put this Amendment down on behalf of the County Councils Association to get some clarification of the meaning of the Clause. Do these words refer to the traditional relations between master and servant, or master and apprentice and, in the case of master and servant, will they apply to the police? The police are officers of the Crown, generally speaking, but it has also been stated that they are servants of the local authority. Into which category do they come? Are they to be treated as officers of the Crown or as officers of the local authority? Then there is the case of teachers under the education authorities. Teachers serving in non-provided schools are the servants of the managers of those schools but they are paid actually by the State and they may be considered as servants of the local education authority, through whom the State pays them.

The Attorney-General: These words "or any relationship similar thereto" follow on the words "master and servant or master and apprentice." I will tell the Committee why we put them in. Take the case of a master and an articled clerk, or a master and a learner, which could not be held to be technically apprenticeship within the ordinary meaning of the word. I think it is right that these general words should be in because they are relationships which might be regarded as those of master and servant or a master and apprentice. I have not had notice of the other two points but it may be that the police are not regarded as "servants" either of the Crown or of the local authority. They are officers. I am not sure that the question of teachers arises but my right hon. Friend will look into the point and perhaps he will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Messer: As the police will come under the definition of officer, will that also include officers of the class who come under the Superannuation Act, 1937?

The Attorney-General: I could not answer that question without notice. I am told that the police will not come under the Bill because there is not the relationship of master and servant, which are the ruling words of the Clause.

Mr. Messer: In the Act to which I refer there are the servant class and the officer

class. Local authorities have both classes. They have servants and officers.

The Attorney-General: We shall have to look into the point.

Sir J. Lamb: I apologise if I used the word "servant" for "officer." I have "officer" on my notes.

Sir H. Williams: Would this Amendment cover a case in which a number of people worked in a form of partnership where, collectively, each is the employee of the other? That is often the case with theatrical companies which work on a partnership basis, each member being employed by the collective community of which they are all members.

The Attorney-General: I could not possibly give an opinion on a rather unusual form of association without seeing what it is.

Sir D. Thomson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consult with the draftsman and put in some such words as "or either thereof" to make plain what is really meant?

The Attorney-General: I will certainly look into that. The class of case that we had in mind was that of master and apprentice but it seems to me that the words probably cover both. I will consult the draftsman.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Major Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 10, line 38, to leave out Sub-section (5).
I have read the Sub-section several times and I cannot in the least understand its effect. I hope the Attorney-General will make the meaning clearer than it is.

The Attorney-General: The idea is this. There may be a contract, for instance, for taking on a non-registered employee when the employer is below his quota, which would be in contravention of the Act. The penalties of the Act, as far as they apply, would apply to the employer. We want to prevent any argument that, because the contract is illegal in the sense that it amounts to a contravention of the Act, the man with whom it was made should be deprived of any right to move to enforce it. Obviously he will be a completely innocent party. He has taken the job. He did not know that the employer was below the quota and it


would be wrong that he should not be able to enforce his rights under the contract. That is the purpose of the Clause. It preserves the rights of the parties as between each other, and it is put in to prevent anyone suggesting that, because it was in contravention of the Act, therefore it was illegal and unenforceable.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bellenger: ; I should like to ask what Sub-section (4) really means. I should have thought that anyone employed would be covered by an earlier Clause. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an example?

The Attorney-General: The example we had in mind was this. Suppose a man is an employer in the ordinary way of more than 20 people in his factory. The Bill will not apply to him in that capacity. If he is, in a fiduciary or a trustee capacity, the manager of a school and, as such, in law the employer of the employees in that school, it would be wrong that the employees in the factory and in the school should be treated differently.

Sir H. Williams: Is Sub-section (5) intended to be retrospective? Many of us have received a circular about two former employees of the Post Office whose employment was terminated on the ground of their condition of health. Both have now served with distinction in the Armed Forces and their health is presumably all right, but the Post Office refuses to reemploy them. It seems to me that the Sub-section has some bearing on that peculiar situation. The Post Office is acting in complete opposition to the principles embodied in the Bill.

Mr. Rhys Davies: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. I have asked a Question and got an assurance from the Post Office which is contrary to what he says. He is usually up to date, but not on this point.

Dr. Morgan (Rochdale): This was not a question of disablement at all but of not coming up to the medical standards of the Post Office.

The Attorney-General: The Clause is not retrospective and I am not the Postmaster-General.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 14.—(Records to be kept by employers.)

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 11, line 17, to leave out from "Section", to the end of the Subsection.
My purpose is to get an assurance that the forms and returns contemplated are going to be of the simplest character possible. The number of forms that have to be filled up is becoming really unbearable. When we met the Parliamentary Secretary this point was raised and we were assured that it was not anticipated that many records and forms would be required. The Parliamentary Secretary said he thought that local authorities would be able to use existing records provided they gave the Minister the information required. It seems to be contemplated here that all sorts of new forms are going to be put up to be filled in instead of using the returns which are kept in the normal way as being able to provide the required information.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. McCorquodale): I think everyone has sympathy with what the hon. Member wishes to do. We have had so much experience with forms and records during the war that no one wants to see them too difficult. I can give the assurance that we are going to try to make the obligation required here as simple as possible but it is necessary to obtain the requisite amount of information to see that the provisions under the Bill are, in actual fact, being kept. The Sub-section is put in to help what the hon. Member has in mind. It is the intention that the Minister should make the regulations as simple as possible, and in accordance with the practice followed up to now if that is sufficient. We could not accept these Amendments. The first two would delete the last words of Sub-sections (1) and (2) which are necessary to ensure that all the requisite information is afforded. It is desirable that we should in Sub-section (3) stipulate, for the convenience of people, how best they can keep those records, and the fourth Amendment which the hon. Member wishes to move means that after 12 months the whole thing would be closed down. The fact that an employer has not for some considerable time been undertaking his obligations under this Bill might not come


to light until after 12 months had elapsed, and it would not be the wish of this House that he would get off scot free. Therefore, we cannot agree that records should be allowed to be destroyed at the end of 12 months, for that would destroy any proof of misdemeanour on the part of the employer.

Sir H. Williams: On that point, my hon. Friend has suggested that this would be done by regulations. People would be called upon to supply a lot of information. These regulations are operative the moment they are made. It is true they can be subsequently cancelled
within the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the day on which any such regulations or order are or is laid before it resolves that the regulations or order be annulled.
But if the Minister made the regulations towards the end of July, the three months might well go by during which these regulations were operative, and people would have to do all the work. Therefore, so long as Clause 19 remains in its present form, the assurance given by my hon. Friend is not too satisfactory.

Mr. Douglas: This Clause does not impose any obligation to make returns, it merely imposes an obligation on the employer to keep records, and if this Measure is to work, employers will have to keep records, otherwise it will be impossible to enforce its provisions. I would also point out that the Clause as drafted is of an extremely reasonable character. It specifies the matters of which a record has to be kept, and no objection is taken to the matters which are to be recorded. It goes on to say that the Minister may make regulations, and if the employer keeps his records in the form mentioned by the regulations, he will certainly be entirely correct in what he has done. But it does not say that the employer is bound to keep his records in that particular form. It gives the employer the option of keeping his records in other forms so long as he keeps the required particulars, and therefore it gives a large amount of elasticity, and I think that the Government are to be congratulated upon this.

Sir H. Williams: My hon. Friend has overlooked the fact that while it is true the employer has to make a record it must be in such a way that it can be inspected under paragraph 4 and then,

if the Minister, or his minion, does not like that, under paragraph 5 there can be a prosecution—a prosecution under something which may subsequently be annulled by this House. Everything done under the Order prior to the annulment would be in order and there would be no return of the fine for doing something which the House of Commons subsequently approved as right.

Mr. Douglas: There would be no prosecution under paragraph 3.

Mr. Bevin: I would appeal to the Committee to cut down their remarks on this question of keeping records. It has been debated so many times in this House and there is really no difference between this proposal and what has been done under the Trades Boards for 25 years.

Mr. Key: In view of the explanation given by my right hon. Friend I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Key: I beg to move, in page 11, line 36, after "period," to insert "not exceeding twelve months."

Amendment negatived.

Major Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 12, line 7, after "shall," to insert:
unless he satisfies the court that such failure is due to his not having kept the required records.
I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will thank us for having given him an opportunity of noting what he had apparently not noted before, that under the wording of the Bill some poor devil might suffer because in the first instance he failed to produce the necessary records. I feel quite sure that no further words of mine are needed for the Attorney-General to put the matter right for the Committee.

The Attorney-General: I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for putting this down. There was a possibility—though it was not likely to happen—that under the Clause as originally drafted a man might be prosecuted one month for not keeping records and he might say, "I never have kept them," and then next month they might say, "Produce your records," and he might then be prosecuted for not being able to produce records which he had already been punished for not keeping. It is better that the Clause should not be capable of


that construction, and we advise the Committee to accept the Amendment. It is in a slightly altered form. The word "kept" is used on the Order Paper. It is ambiguous and might refer to the original making of the entries or the preserving of them in the intermediate period, so I think the Amendment must read:
Unless he proves that the failure is due to his not having made or not having preserved the required records.

Major Lloyd: I am obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend and under the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Major Lloyd: I beg to move, in Clause 14, page 12, line 7, after "shall," to insert:
unless he proves that the failure is due to his not having made or not having preserved the required records.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 15.—(Provision for registered persons who are seriously disabled of employment, or work on their own account, under special conditions.)

Mr. Tomlinson: I beg to move, in page 12, line 27, after "account," to insert:
(whether because employment or such work would not be available to them or because they would be unlikely to be able to compete therein on terms comparable as respects earnings and security with those enjoyed by persons engaged therein who are not subject to disablement.)
The object of this Amendment is to make clear the classes of person entitled to the benefit of the facilities provided by the Clause. The Clause refers to persons registered as handicapped by disablement who, by reason of the nature or severity of their disablement, are unlikely, either at any time or until after the lapse of a prolonged period, to be able "otherwise" to obtain employment or to undertake work on their own account. The word "otherwise" means "except with the aid of the special facilities provided for by the Clause," and the Amendment is designed to make it clear that a disabled person will be held to be eligible for these special facilities in two kinds of circumstances—where no employment or work is likely to be available to him at all, or, where work is available, if owing

to the nature or severity of his disablement he would be unable or unlikely to be able to compete on terms comparable as respects earnings and security with those enjoyed by non-disabled persons engaged in that employment or work. Simply stated, it means that because of the extreme nature of his disability he shall be allowed to come in and partake of the benefits provided in this Clause.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I think it would be taken for granted on the experience of the last war that a considerable number of these poor people will enter the distributive trades and open little shops on their own account. At the moment, so far as we can foresee, nobody will be allowed to open a shop at the end of this war without the consent of the Board of Trade. Will the Ministry of Labour have a liaison with the Board of Trade so that when one of these poor fellows has been rehabilitated then the Board of Trade will not turn round and say "You cannot open a shop at all"?

Mr. Tomlinson: It will be absolutely necessary that there shall be liaison with all those Departments which have restrictive regulations in operation at the present time. The point my hon. Friend has put will be kept in mind.

Mr. Davies: Do we understand that when the Ministry of Labour has done all this excellent work and all other conditions have been satisfied, it will not be possible for the Board of Trade to say that this man shall not enter an occupation of that kind?

Mr. Tomlinson: I think the hon. Member can leave it to the Ministry to see that we will not go to all the trouble of rehabilitating, resettling, and making grants to settle before it is discovered that it is impossible to set a man up in that particular business.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Tomlinson: I beg to move, in page 13, line 14, to leave out "and."
This Amendment has been put down in order to make it clear that the facilities available in other directions shall be available to local authorities for recovering expenditure and for making expenditure under this Clause. If I may give an illustration, under the Workshops for the


Blind Act, practically all the administration is done by the local authorities, and if, under this Bill, the local authorities were called upon, as they are expected to be, to develop that undertaking, then they have the authority to spend the money, just as other undertakings have who receive that authority from the Ministry.

Sir D. Thomson: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman replying to the wrong Amendment?

Mr. Tomlinson: No, as a matter of fact the hon. Gentleman is moving the Amendment which is necessary to cover the position of the local authorities.

Sir D. Thomson: But we are dealing with Clause 15, page 13, line 14, to leave out "and", are we not?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, but there is no point in leaving it out unless you are going to put something in. I am taking it for granted that the two Amendments which run together are being considered together. If it is suggested that the first Amendment should be treated separately then the reason for leaving out the word "and is that we want to insert something else, of which I have spoken.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 17, after "Sub-section," insert:
and to any local authority in respect of expenses incurred by them under any enactment conferring powers on them in that behalf in providing under arrangements made between the Minister and the authority facilities approved by him for any of the purposes mentioned in Sub-section (1) of this Section, in defraying or contributing towards expenses incurred by persons for whom such facilities are so provided in travelling as mentioned in the last preceding Sub-section, or in making payments to or in respect of such persons.—[Mr. Tomlinson.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 16.—(National advisory council and district advisory committees.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Rhys Davies: I am sorry I have not been able to hear all the Debate on the Bill and I do not know whether my points have been raised with the right hon. Gentleman before in establishing the National

Advisory Council and the district committees. Can he tell us how many persons he intends putting on the National Advisory Council and how many district committees he intends setting up? I have a special reason for putting this point. I spoke a moment ago about the disabled men who would be rehabilitated and would enter business on their own account. I am sure that the industry that will receive the largest number of these people will be the distributive trades. I am not asking for more representation of those trades, but I wonder whether the Minister, when thinking of his advisory council and district committees, will see that they are made aware of the fact that in the main the distributive trades will probably be the industry that will be asked to accept the largest number of these rehabilitated persons.

Mr. Bevin: I am afraid that I cannot give any decision as to the size of the committees. They will vary and will depend on the size of the problem, on the people who will have to be called in to help, and the population that is being dealt with in different parts of the country. The number of committees to be established is a flexible number and I cannot decide it now. I repeat what I said on Second Reading, that I want the committees not to be too small and, at the same time, I do not want them to be too big regionally. I want them to be able to keep in close contact with the problem.

The Chairman: The question of the composition of the committees should be discussed on the Schedule.

Mr. Bevin: My hon. Friend asked me a question, and I am glad I am out of Order.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 18.—(Provisions as to offences.)

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, in page 14, line 14, to leave out from "commenced" to "within", in line 17.
I hope the Committee will forgive me if I begin by explaining what I believe is the normal law on this kind of point, and my right hon. and learned Friend will correct me and put the argument on a right basis if I am wrong. I believe that in indictable offences a person may be


accused at any length of time after the commission of an offence, but that with summary offences there is, normally, a limit. I am told that the limit is usually six months, and I am not sure that it is not sometimes rather more. I do not know whether it is wholly unprecedented, but, with submission to the technically learned, I think it must be very rare that a man is put at the risk of committing a summary offence for which he may be tried at any time during his continued existence. If the Minister certifies that it is only on such-and-such a date that the evidence became available, then, however old the offence may be, it will still be possible to prosecute under the Bill. I would not want to do anything to make it difficult to impose proper penalties on persons who are in contravention of the Act, but on the face of it, it does seem to be a loose power to give the Minister. It is a power about which, from the general constitutional point of view, we should be extremely suspicious, and, from a practical point of view, it does not look as if it would always be useful. Corporate employers may change, firms may amalgamate and go out of business, and all sorts of difficulties of that sort may arise. I submit that the Committee ought not to accept the extreme length of time in which there can be a possible prosecution, without a good deal more explanation than appears on the surface of the Bill.

The Attorney-General: Everybody must agree that if the evidence is available proceedings should be taken as promptly as possible. Indeed, the part of this Clause which my hon. Friend attacks puts a three months' limit from the time when the evidence becomes available. There is a 12 months' limit or, alternatively, three months from the time the evidence becomes available. I agree there is a type of offence which can be dealt with summarily for which it might be inappropriate and unjustified to have a provision of this kind. There are precedents for it in the Unemployment Insurance Act and in one other Act. The reason is one which, I think, will commend itself to the Committee. The evidence that a man has carried out his obligations under this Bill will depend on records. If he fabricates his records, a period of longer than 12 months may well go by during which he remains undetected, because he has put before the inspecting officials false records. I do

not think the Committee would desire that, provided he can keep that game up for 12 months, he should be able to go scot free. This is a case in which it is desirable that there should be this power, but I think it right that the limit after the evidence is disclosed should be the short one of three months. As my hon. Friend said, there is normally a time limit for summary proceedings, but here a case is established for giving an extension. It would be repugnant to us if a man who had remained undetected through keeping false records was able to snap his fingers at us because 12 months had elapsed.

Sir A. Southby: I do not think the Attorney-General has entirely answered the point of my hon. Friend. Everybody will agree that if somebody has falsified the records, even if he was found out a considerable period afterwards, he ought to be dealt with. The difficulty, however, will come in when there is an amalgamation of businesses or when somebody goes out of business. When a man has wound up his affairs, and, as a result of later investigation, he is put on trial for an offence which is alleged to have taken place when he was in business, it will be difficult for him to get adequate evidence for his defence. I urge the Government to reconsider the point and to see whether the sensible point put by my hon. Friend cannot be met.

Sir R. Glyn: May I ask why in one part of the Clause "in England" is used and in another part "in Great Britain"? Is there any reason why England should be mentioned and not Wales?

The Attorney-General: England includes Wales, but does not include Scotland.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is it not a fact that in most Acts "England and Wales" occurs?

The Attorney-General: In some; not all.

Mr. Davies: Why are not the two words included here?

The Attorney-General: A saving of paper.

Sir D. Thomson: May I ask the Attorney-General to consider this Amendment again? Surely if an employer falsifies his records he can be had up for the


offence of fraud or falsification. In these days, when all possible paper is salvaged, it becomes difficult to keep records and papers for long periods. Under this Clause there appears to be no limit of time during which it will be necessary to keep records. Is it not possible in some other way to get a man who commits an offence?

The Attorney-General: I do not think so. I will consider it, but I cannot hold out any hope of an Amendment. I think the difficulty suggested is an unreal one. If a man has employed his quota and kept his records, and if it is clear that he has carried out the Act in the spirit and the letter and perhaps had two or three people over his number, and a reasonable time has elapsed, he will put his records in the fire with his other correspondence.

Sir D. Thomson: That would be committing an offence straight away.

The Attorney-General: I do not think so, but I will look into that point. Records have in any case to be kept for a time. It is a problem of which this requirement will be a very minor part. There is always the problem of the length of time for which records should be kept. Sometimes, after a business has been wound up, there have been complaints about something that was done, and the records have been wanted, to throw some light upon it. It must be a matter of commonsense. We must keep the power to have the prosecution for the 12 months, if anything comes to our knowledge. I do not think it is possible to cut it down to one particular class of case.

Sir H. Williams: Can the Attorney-General tell us of any other Acts of Parliament where an offence is dealt with in this way?

The Attorney-General: Yes, the Unemployment Insurance Act. There is another Act also.

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not think the Attorney-General has made the case very much stronger. The general part of his argument seemed rather to rest upon the not uncommon assumption that nobody is prosecuted unless he is guilty, while the particular part of his argument was that people have to keep records anyway and it is an awful nuisance. This Clause is, however, introducing a new problem. We have heard that there are already two

Acts, one named and the other unnamed, which impose summary penalties after this indefinite delay, so that, besides being a nuisance, the keeping of records is for the first time capable of involving a summary offence for which a person may be prosecuted as long as he lives. This seems to be a new principle which I do not think the Committee ought to swallow without consideration.

Amendment negatived.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (3).
I move this Amendment for the purpose of getting an explanation from my right hon. and learned Friend. It seems extraordinary that a body corporate should be required to pay a fine up to a maximum of £500, whereas any other person has to pay a fine only up to a maximum of £100. I cannot understand why that should be, unless it is on the assumption that bodies corporate are wealthier than individuals. Surely there are many cases where individual employers are much wealthier than some of the small limited liability companies. Is this not introducing a new principle in law? Is it usual, or does it ever happen, that there are two different penalties laid down in respect of the same offence? I should like to have an explanation.

Sir H. Williams: Before this Amendment is dealt with on the question raised, there is another question. Because of business in another part of the building I have not been able to be present, but I understand that an undertaking has been given that Government Departments are to come into this scheme. If a Government Department is a body corporate, as I think it is, and even the Minister may be, because he is usually seen with a corporation, what is to be the position if a Government Department fails, as Government Departments sometimes do, to carry out a decision under the Bill? Is any penalty to be imposed on someone in the service of the Crown?

The Attorney-General: We discussed this matter upon an earlier Amendment.

Sir H. Williams: Not about penalties.

The Attorney-General: Yes, Sir.

Sir A. Southby: I want to support what has just been said by my hon. Friend. It appears that in this case heavy penal-


ties are being exacted from individuals or bodies corporate, but that Government Departments are put into a privileged position.

Amendment negatived.

Major Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 14, line 3s, after "capacity" to insert:
and whose duty it was either to engage or dismiss staff or to give directions with regard thereto, or to keep records of the persons employed.
This Sub-section is extremely widely drawn. Apparently it puts the onus upon every director of a company, and I imagine upon the head of a trade union or a co-operative society, of proving to the satisfaction of the court, when a branch has taken on a fit man when it ought to have taken on a disabled person, that he was exercising
all such diligence to prevent the commission of the offence as he ought to have exercised having regard to the nature of his functions in that capacity and to all the circumstances.
The effect of the Clause seems to be to cause a great waste of time. I do not want to cut it down so that it lets anyone through who ought to be brought before the court, but the Amendment is intended to effect that the person to be brought before the court shall have had something to do with the engagement or dismissal of staff or keeping of records, and other matters which are made offences under the Bill.

The Attorney-General: Running the business of a limited liability company has certain advantages. On the whole, where you get provisions, as we have in the Bill, under which certain acts or omissions may involve penalties, it is right, broadly speaking, that the directors should be able to be made personally responsible. Responsibility should not fall on the main body of shareholders but on those who are responsible for the running of the business. The difficulty I feel about the Amendment is that if it was inserted it would put on the prosecution the onus of proving that the directors concerned had the duty of engaging or dismissing staff, or giving directions with regard thereto, or of keeping records of the persons employed, and that would, no doubt, be difficult for the prosecution to prove. It might be very easy for the director to say that he did not engage

staff. I believe that the Clause in its present form is right. There is no reason to suppose that prosecutions will be brought oppressively or foolishly against directors, but they must accept general responsibility. It is right also that there should be what is really a concession to them, namely, that if they can show that it happened without their knowledge, consent or connivance, and that they exercised all reasonable diligence to prevent its commission—I am not reading the actual words of the Bill—they should get off. I regard that as a concession to the directors.

Sir A. Southby: The Attorney-General said just now that the Amendment would put the onus upon the prosecution. It cannot have escaped the notice of any Member of this Committee that the modern tendency is to make the accused prove himself innocent and not to make the prosecutor prove him guilty. It seems to me desirable that the person actually responsible should be brought before the court. It is rather browning the covey to say that all the directors, who may have nothing to do with that side of the business, should be held responsible for the act of one of them. Indeed I am not clear as to what would be the effect, for example, on the Co-operative Society. Suppose some mistake is made by a branch of, the Co-operative Society. Is the whole organisation to be held responsible for what was done by some manager in some local branch? The same applies to the chain stores. I think we should be a little more careful to identify the real miscreant and not to involve other people, and not to hold that those people should have to prove they are innocent instead of it being necessary for the prosecution to prove that they are guilty.

Sir I. Fraser: I am glad my hon. and gallant Friend raised this point. I think some more assurance is needed. Some words are required, perhaps other than those of the Amendment, to achieve this purpose. I think that the directors should be held responsible but if they can show they gave proper instructions then the liability should fall upon the man who did not carry them out. But unless you make the directors responsible there is an opportunity for slackness.

Sir H. Williams: I am not quite clear on the position of municipal corporations


under this Clause. I take it that in that case every member of a town council would be liable to prosecution if I have read the Clause aright. I happen to be a member of the London County Council on which there are 140 of us. Would it be proposed to prosecute the lot of us? I remember a curious case when the House of Commons—if I may put it that way—prosecuted a company in conection with the King's National Roll. In 1926, I think it was, the County of London Electric Supply Co. promoted a Bill in this House and a Member of Parliament who was Chairman of the King's Roll National Council, moved the rejection of the Bill on the ground that the company had not joined the King's Roll. This is the same idea in extended and legislative form. That Bill was rejected on the ground that the company had failed to do its proper duty. The facts were that the secretary or the assistant-secretary had failed to bring before the directors a communication from the King's Roll National Council. So, the whole company and their potential consumers were prejudiced and for a year the whole enterprise was set back, because this House, by securing the rejection of that Bill, prosecuted the directors, the shareholders, and their prospective consumers, all because of the failure of an official who was never attacked at all. That case was analogous to what we are now discussing. In other words, is the man who has offended to be the man who is prosecuted?

Major Manningham-Buller: In view of what has been said by the Attorney-General, although it does not entirely satisfy me, as his argument seemed to me to be that because it was difficult to find the guilty man therefore every one of them would have to prove they were not guilty, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lionel Berry: Before we leave this Clause I think the Committee is entitled to some explanation in regard to Subsection (3). The question was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith), and I hope we shall have an answer. Unfortunately on that Amendment the Com-

mittee got drawn aside to another question as to what was a body corporate and a Government Department, and no actual official reply was given. Before we leave the Clause I think we might have an explanation.

Mr. Bevin: With regard to the £500 and the £100 when we considered this problem we had regard to the fact that we were dealing with a very wide range of business down to the small shopkeeper or the small people employing 20 people, and that we also had to deal with large corporate bodies with multiple shops, big works and so on. I anticipated that if the penalty were made £500, I should have heard a cry in this Committee, "Are you going to lay on the person right at the bottom of this scale, the same penalty that you are providing to deal with the companies with a large number of shops, etc.?" In fact the matter came up on another Clause to-day. As regards the question of the Co-operative Society as to whether each shop was the offender, or whether it was the society, it is the society. The society might commit an offence at quite a number of shops or over the whole field. I feel that you have such a wide range of concerns with which to deal that the discretion of the Court should be such as to enable them to impose a heavier penalty on the larger body than on the single person employing 20 people. I think that is reasonable having regard to the different magnitudes of the offence.

Sir H. Williams: May I have an answer about town councils? Who would be prosecuted in the case of an offence by the Amalgamated Engineering Union, which employs a lot of people, or the Transport and General Workers' Union, who employ many more?

Mr. Bevin: In the case of the Transport and General Workers' Union I can give the utmost assurance that it would be the Executive Council.

Sir H. Williams: They would be prosecuted although the general secretary might be responsible?

Mr. Bevin: The Bill says, "Or officer."

Sir H. Williams: I want to know who is the person to be prosecuted.

The Attorney-General: That depends on the decision of whoever is in charge of the prosecution on the facts before them. The hon. Member asks who would be prosecuted. I say that no one can say. It depends on the evidence, the facts and the inferences. You can prosecute a body corporate. You need not prosecute every officer or director. You must trust people to exercise a reasonable commonsense. Theoretically prosecutions on insufficient evidence can be launched to-day. They seldom are. Here the Bill says that directors or officers are all prima facie responsible, but if they took all reasonable steps in the exercise of their responsibility the prosecuting authority must have that in mind. Under the Bill proceedings are in order against a body corporate or any officer or any director of it.

Sir H. Williams: I want to know who is capable of being prosecuted in the case of a municipal authority.

The Attorney-General: I have not got the constitutions of various local authorities: borough councils, rural district councils and so on, in my head; but anybody who comes under the description of "officer" of a municipality may be prosecuted.

Sir H. Williams: The directors of the municipality are the council. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] By analogy. The people who are responsible for decisions and supervision of administration are the elected members of the council and the aldermen. The officers are the town clerk, the borough engineer, the sanitary inspector, the surveyor, and all the rest. If we pass this does it authorise the prosecution of every member of a local authority? Either it does or it does not. The Attorney-General presumably knows what he means, and he ought to tell us before we let this Clause go.

Sir I. Fraser: Is this House a body corporate, and what happens if we do not employ the right percentage ourselves?

Mr. Colegate: I sympathise with the contention that the magnitude of the offender should have some influence upon the punishment, but that is not the issue, because very often a body corporate is much smaller than a private employer or partnership. If it is the intention that a public body com-

mitting an offence should be fined substantially, that should be stated in the Bill. The right thing is to find a form of words which will give the necessary legal basis for fining a large body more heavily than the small employer, but to do it on the basis that £100 is to be the limit for the private employer and that only the corporate body is to be fined £500 is quite wrong.

Sir J. Lamb: The Attorney-General said that he did not know who would be liable. That is a matter that we want to clarify. With regard to the local authority, is the chairman of the roads committee, for instance, liable, because. I take it that he is to a certain extent an officer?

Captain Sir William Brass: Could the Minister cite any other Acts of Parliament where the penalties are different?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.

Sir W. Brass: It is a new principle.

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Woodburn: Could not the difficulty be got over by making the maximum £500 for everybody? Nobody says that an offender must be fined £500—that is a maximum Why there should be this argument over the big body, I do not know.

Mr. Bevin: I am not taking the £500 to-day, anyway. I will look into the suggestion of making the figure £500 all round. My real anxiety is to protect the small man. But I will look into the matter between now and the Report stage.

The Attorney-General: With regard to the local authority, you can, of course, prosecute the council. They are a body corporate and can be prosecuted as such. You can also prosecute any officer of the council. The chairman and members are not officers. Without giving an exhaustive list, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) will know that in law there are men who are officers. They could be prosecuted, or the council could be prosecuted as a whole.

Sir J. Lamb: But the election of officers for the council includes the election, of chairman and vice-chairman.

The Attorney-General: In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), the House of Commons is not a body corporate.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Earl Winterton: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I do so not out of hostility to the Government, but because I think it is necessary that an unwritten rule of our procedure should be supported even in war-time. That unwritten rule is that when the Government suspend on an important Bill they announce at some time or other whether they intend to take the whole of the Bill, and how long it is proposed to sit. We are about to enter upon a very important discussion, if we go on upon Clause 19, in which there is a great deal of interest, at a somewhat late hour, and, secondly, as the Committee will be aware, if they make a simple calculation, we have been sitting on the Committee stage of this Bill longer than in peace-time we normally sit in any day. I have no party interest in the matter, but I do not think it desirable that, even in war-time, the Committee, or the House, should continue to sit on an important Bill without some statement from the Government of the reasons for sitting late, and how long it is proposed to sit.

Mr. A. Bevan: I hope that the Government will not surrender to the request which has been made. If we are going, in the next three or four months, to report Progress and end our Sittings seven and a half hours after the meeting of the House, we shall never get through the volume of business that we shall have before us. I consider that the Motion has been moved too early in the proceedings. [Interruption.] I know that you can have Committees upstairs, but Committees upstairs have not yet been appointed. As has been pointed out, we are not having Committees upstairs yet because we are waiting for the days to draw out in order to get that done. Secondly, there is an obvious reason why the Motion should not be accepted. A long series of discussions has taken place in Committee to-day on a number of Amendments, not one of which has been pressed to a Division. A very large num-

ber of Amendments has been moved for the purpose of building a background atmosphere for the next Debate rather than because of the merits of the Amendments themselves.

Sir H. Williams: Is it in Order for an hon. Member to impute motives?

Mr. Bevan: I have not imputed motives.

The Chairman (Major Milner): It is in Order if the motives so imputed are bona fide, not mala fide.

Mr. Bevan: No one for a moment suggests that I have been imputing personal motives. They are motives of Parliamentary strategy, which are an entirely different matter. It seems to me that, in such circumstances, we are going to find ourselves trapped over and over again. It will be quite easy for hon. Members wanting to do it to fill up the Order Paper with Amendments, each of which will have to be debated, about none of which they will feel earnest enough to go to a division, and then, when the dinner hour is approaching, they will move to report Progress. I earnestly suggest that if the Government are serious in their wishes to get through the volume of business indicated, they should not accept this or any similar Motion.

Mr. Pickthorn: It is a matter of indifference to me whether we report Progress now or go on. If I had to decide, I do not know whether I should stop or go on, so it cannot be said that I am prejudiced in this matter, but the observations of the hon. Gentleman should not pass wholly without comment. If it is to be said that Amendments which are put down are put down for merely factious purposes unless they are always pressed to a Division, then hon. Members who put down Amendments would be compelled always to divide and a great deal of time would be wasted. I was very much tempted to-day on one occasion to divide the Committee and would have liked to have done so. I would not mind being voted down at all. But I do not think that that would be very agreeable to the Front Bench, whom I do not mind very much, or to hon. Members opposite whom I mind more, nor is it fair to suggest that all these Amendments have been factious because we have not pressed them to a Division.

Mr. Bevan: I did not say that.

Mr. Pickthorn: On more than one of these Amendments we have had promises of consideration and on more than one we have actually had promises of amendment between now and a later stage, and some have even been accepted. If this kind of argument is to be used, it will make it very necessary for Committee stages on the Floor of the House to be very much slower. Everybody has been as quick as possible, and it cannot be suggested that there has been anything factious or obstructionist.

Mr. Bevin: I have no complaint to make either of the work of the Committee to-day or on the previous day's Sitting, but I would remind the noble Lord who moved to report Progress that, apart from the next Clause, there is practically little or nothing needing discussion on the Bill. The next Clause is the vital Clause. I cannot see much controversy over the rest of the Bill, but there is controversy over the next Clause. The Government are asking to-day for the completion of the Committee stage of this Bill. They are working out their timetable having regard to the large amount of legislation and other matters which the House is waiting to Debate.

Earl Winterton: Do I understand that there has been any announcement that we are to complete the Committee stage of the Bill?

Mr. Bevin: When the Leader of the House announced the Business he not only announced the completion of the Committee stage of this Bill but other Business to follow, if time permitted. Therefore, the idea in the mind of the Government was that this was a Bill the Committee stage of which could be completed to-day. I would ask the House to get to grips with the next Clause and let us complete the Committee stage, especially having regard to all the other things the Government have on hand in addition to war problems.

Sir A. Southby: I would like to reinforce the plea of my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton), who has moved to report Progress at a convenient time in the proceedings in Committee, when the business has been swept up to a considerable extent and before we embark on what is probably the most contentious part of the

Bill. The Government have suspended the Rule, but we have had Debates in this House in which many Members wished to take part where the Rule, instead of being suspended for an unlimited period, has, contrary to the wishes of many people in the House, been suspended for only a limited period. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) would agree with me that there have been many occasions when he and I would have liked to see the Debate going on. I do not at all mind going on sitting to discuss the Clause. I share with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale a secret pleasure in an all-night Sitting, if it comes to that, but we have been in the habit of finishing Business somewhere about this time in existing circumstances.
The Minister himself says that the business to be done after Clause 19 has been got out of the way is small, and I suggest that it is for the convenience of Members that we should report Progress now and meet to conclude the Committee stage of the Bill at an hour more convenient to Members of the Committee. Business is not so pressing that we could not get rid of the rest of the Committee stage of the Bill within a short time. The passage of the Bill through Committee has been marked by the way in which there has been good will over the discussion of it. It was a little ungenerous of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale to suggest that because time was not spent in hopeless Divisions in the Lobby, therefore, in some way Members who moved Amendments were to blame. There has been free discussion on many of the important points, and I appeal to the Government Front Bench to let us have this other rather contentious discussion on Clause 19 at a fresh Sitting of the Committee and to report Progress now.

Mr. Bowles: In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) and in contradiction of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), I wish to say that I have sat through this Debate and have heard hon. Member after hon. Member from the opposite side of the Committee agreeing to withdraw his Amendment and saying at the same time that he did not understand the explanation given by the Attorney-General.

The Attorney-General: The only hon. Member who said he did not understand an explanation was an hon. Member opposite.

Sir I. Fraser: I suggest to the Committee that we finish the job. It has been stated even by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby), who wants us to get up, that it would not take long when we met again, and that is surely a powerful argument for doing it now. It is a controversial matter that interests the minds of some Members and some parts of the mind of all Members, no doubt, but there are other Members who are particularly interested in the disabled man and they want to see the new Clause, which the Government have put on the Paper and which goes a long way towards meeting the matters raised in the last Debate, through the Committee stage. While it might be inconvenient for some to stay, it is convenient to those who are interested in the disabled people, and who came prepared to stay, and I suggest, therefore, that we now finish the job.

Mr. Bellenger: I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they are going to keep the Committee debating for a long time a principle that ought not to be debated on this Bill. The question of regulations and how we use that procedure has long been before this House, and why should we not take a better opportunity to debate a very vital principle? Why should this Bill be singled out as one on which to stay late in discussing a principle which is not really germane to this Bill?

Sir H. Williams: I do not think that it is unreasonable, when an important issue arises, to expect the Chamber to be fairly full. We know that a number of Members are away for various reasons. A large number of Members do not live near. When you have something which raises a major issue people say, "Why on this Bill?" You have to do it on every Bill.
The issue is this: Shall Parliament remain effectively in control of reconstruction legislation after it has been passed as an Act? It is only by chance that this happens to be virtually the first of the reconstruction Bills. If we are to be successful in this country after the war, Parliament must be effectively in control of the situation and the issue is whether or not delegated legislation is to remain

effectively under the control of this House. It is because I want to see that issue debated on this Bill, when the House is fully represented and not partially represented, that I make this plea: If we have a Division later one quarter of the House will be present, but some 450 Members will be missing, including the larger proportion of His Majesty's Ministers, although the Front Bench is at this moment well decorated in more senses than one. However, that does not alter the fact that when a major issue of principle is at stake the generality of Members ought to have an opportunity of taking part.

Mr. A. Bevan: May I ask for your guidance, Major Milner? It is perfectly true that a principle of great importance is about to be discussed. I want to go on discussing it but are we to be allowed to discuss it? I would prefer to see this principle discussed in isolation, on its own merits. I think it is necessary that that should be done. Are we to be able to discuss the merits of legislation by Order, in general, separated from the particular merits of the proposals in this Bill; or when we come to the discussion on the Bill, shall we be confined to discussing whether this particular power in these particular circumstances, ought to be given to this particular Government?
I made a proposal concerning this matter in the House some weeks ago—a proposal, I think, of some substance—which would enable us to discuss this whole matter and I would prefer, if my hon. Friends opposite would forgo this occasion, that assurances should be given, and facilities provided, by the Government so that the whole House should have an opportunity of deciding what modifications in our procedure should be made in view of the body of legislation which will come before us in the next few months. I submit that this is a matter on which you, Major Milner, might advise us.

The Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say at once that it is, clearly, not possible to discuss the general principle involved now. It is only possible to discuss the question, in so far as it relates to this Bill.

Mr. Bevan: Then may I put this to the Government? I think the Minister of Labour has a grievance that he should be penalised on the grounds of general principle. I think my hon. Friends opposite


would desire that this principle should be considered by the House of Commons, not in relation to a Minister who has already been subjected to opposition from the benches opposite. I submit that their position in our eyes and in the eyes of the public will be prejudiced if they intend to impale the Minister of Labour on a general principle of that sort. It is no use hon. Members opposite shaking their heads, because they have expressed that view to me outside this House. The Government should give us an early opportunity of discussing this principle, in isolation.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: I do not know what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has in mind, but if he meant that I and my hon. Friends should not proceed with our Amendment to Clause 19 because of some general discussion, it would be a belated discussion and would not satisfy me at all. The issue for the Committee to decide is whether they intend to delegate their powers in a certain way or not. I do not want to discuss what I am about to say later, if it is so decided, but I think it would be unfortunate for the Committee, which has had a great deal of work to do, if the Minister were not willing to give way on what a large number of Members consider a matter of importance. There is no question of a personal attack upon the Ministed. Such an idea is absolutely without foundation, [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not think it has ever been in the head of anybody on this side of the House that there has been a personal attack. This is the first Bill of reconstruction and the matter is raised in the form in which a great many Members of this Committee think it ought to be discussed.

Mr. Woodburn: I would call the attention of the Committee to the misapprehension that exists that this is the first Bill on which this question has arisen. The same principle existed in the Hydro-Electric Bill, which was also a Reconstruction Bill.

Mr. Molson: Is it in Order, Major Milner, to discuss this on the Motion to report Progress?

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) is getting a little wide but I understand he is giving an instance of the question we are

discussing. It depends on how far he intends to go.

Mr. Woodburn: I was about to suggest to hon. Members opposite that they give the impression that their insistence on discussing this principle in relation to this Bill is rather an opposition to the Bill itself—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—which cannot be stated frankly and openly and that their action is liable to be misinterpreted in that way. It would be much wiser if this matter were discussed, in principle, in regard to all Bills that are coming along. If it is wrong in regard to this Bill, it is wrong in regard to all Bills. If it was right in regard to the Hydro-Electric Bill, it is right in regard to this Bill. There is no reason why this Bill, at this time of the day, should be used as a peg on which to hang a first-class discussion on the question of the presentation of Regulations. I suggest, further, that it would have another advantage because a great deal of legislation will be coming forward in regard to reconstruction and many people would be willing to discuss the matter with an open mind if it was not in connection with this Bill.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Many of us on this side of the Committee feel a great deal of sympathy with the principle put forward by hon. Members opposite. If it came forward in isolation, we should probably support them, but we shall not do so on this Bill.

Earl Winterton: I have endeavoured to catch your eye several times, Major Milner, in order to ask leave to withdraw the Motion. But before doing so I want to say that I, personally, am satisfied with what the Minister of Labour gave as his reason for finishing the Committee stage of the Bill to-day. All I asked him—as I was entitled to do, and I thank him for his courteous reply—was what were his intentions? I do not think it is sufficient under our procedure for the Deputy Prime Minister, or anybody else, to announce at Question Time that it is hoped to take a certain amount of Business. I think it should be definitely stated. I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). I hope that if the Committee decide to finish this Bill now, when my hon. Friend, or any other Member with an independent point of view, asks that the


Rule be suspended to discuss some other matter we shall not be told by the Government, "All right, we are willing to suspend the Rule for one hour." It is a matter of equal importance to all parties in the House.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 19.—(Regulations and orders.)

Mr. Erskine-Hill: I beg to move, in page 15, line 7, to leave out from "and," to "period," in line 8, and to insert:
any such regulation or order shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a.
I have another Amendment, in page 15, line 8, to leave out from "days," to "without," in line 11, and to insert:
from the date on which it is made unless at some time before the expiration of that period it has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if these two Amendments were considered together.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): Yes, if the Committee agrees, we can consider them together.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: The general effect of the Amendments is to substitute an affirmative Resolution for the approval of Orders, rather than the more normal procedure of letting them lie on the Table, subject to a Prayer. My hon. Friends, in putting forward these Amendments, regard this Bill as of very peculiar importance because of the interest which the House of Commons has always shown, first, in members of the Armed Forces, and particularly those who have been disabled, and secondly in that very large section of the population who are injured at their work, wherever it may be. That seems to us to imply a duty of the House of Commons to be careful to see that they overlook the powers delegated to the Minister, and I think the Minister will agree that these powers are very wide. In Clauses 7 and 8, the Minister has powers to make rules about the conditions of being entered upon the register. In Clause 8, he has similar powers about men's names being retained on the register, and, under those powers it is possible for him to take the widest possible action, including that of sending a man from the North of Scotland, shall we say, to the South of England. These powers raise all sorts of

questions of principle which ought to receive the consideration of the House of Commons. Clause 10 gives the Minister power to settle upon the quotas, and he may, by Order, even reduce them beyond the limit set forth in that Clause. He can do that by Orders. These are very important powers, as I think the Committee will consider. The Minister may, further, alter the percentages, and, in that way, the Minister's powers affect industry throughout the country.
In the ordinary administrative use of these powers, the Minister will remember that he is responsible to the House of Commons, but where it gives power this Committee must be very careful where that power goes. Particularly, we want to stress Clause 20, where the Minister has power to enter the names of aliens on the register and settle the type of alien, or the country to which the alien belongs, and all these regulations would have a very strong effect in altering the principle of the Bill. It does seem to me that we ought, while supporting this Bill throughout, to take this step of seeing that the House is protected against the Minister doing anything which would not receive the approval of the House. This House may delegate its legislative powers, but it can never delegate its responsibilities. The House is responsible all the time to the people. Nor, I think, ought we to be willing to give a blank cheque to the Administration to do what they like unless we retain some power over the matters involved. I think the Committee will agree that, in a Bill which, at the same time, affects that class of person to whom I have referred and gives the widest possible powers, as I have attempted to show, and which is one of the first real Measures of post-war reconstruction, this Committee has a duty to itself, to make clear that the House will retain the responsibility and will retain its sense of responsibility.
Of course, as the stream of legislation grows after the war, much delegation will require to be done by this House. I should be the first to admit it, but this House must be master of its own delegation and that is why it seems to us that this matter should be discussed on this Bill. I am anxious to have, as soon as possible, a discussion on the general principle, so that we can go into it and arrive at some more satisfactory arrangement


than exists now. I am entirely in favour of that, but also the Committee has a duty, on this Bill, to raise the question and decide it for itself. If some of the recommendations of the Report on the Powers of Ministers, which has been, I think, for 12 years before the House, had been in use, and if there had been, for example, a Committee of the House to examine these things, it might have removed a great deal of the responsibility from this Committee for allowing this Clause to go through as originally phrased. If this Committee will face this position now, and rule in favour of an affirmative Resolution, I cannot see how it will interfere with the Government at all.
Why should we not have an affirmative Resolution? What does it mean? It simply means that they appear on the Order Paper and the regulations are available to Members. It makes certain that hon. Members discharge their responsibility to the people and examine what the regulations are. Often in the past regulations have slipped through, and many of us have been disturbed and occupied in our minds about what we have allowed to go through, because we have not had a proper opportunity of examining it. What will acceptance of the Amendment do? It will just ensure that Ministers are careful in putting their regulations, and the Minister of Labour, when he is able to explain to the House that they are purely administrative and do not interest the House, will see them go through with a nod. If they are regulations of principle, he will be able to explain them to the House and have the satisfaction of knowing, when they receive the approval of the House, that he has the House of Commons behind him.
I do not think it should be a party matter. It should be a purely House of Commons matter, and I think responsibility rests just as much on hon. Members opposite as upon us. The House of Commons itself should decide this matter, and our own view is that we should not discharge this responsibility by allowing the Bill to go through as it is. I hope the Government will be able to accept this Amendment. I think they will lose nothing by it. I think they will give the House of Commons evidence that they realise the responsibility which the House wants to exercise wisely and well.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: I do not understand at all why this particular principle has been raised upon this particular Bill. Those of us who have sat here for years have had experience of regulations forced through by great majorities on the opposite side which have had the effect of causing great trouble, after we had warned the House. I remember that on the Assistance Board Regulations there were practically riots. I do not understand why this point is raised on this Bill. I agree that if you could discuss this question as a principle apart from this Bill it would be a desirable thing, but the hon. Gentleman has not told us just why it has been raised on this particular Bill. Let me put the thing bluntly. Is it because many hon. Gentlemen opposite are making a party matter of this Bill? [Interruption.] I must say that the impression has grown on me, as I have said at various stages of this Bill, that there has been a tendency not to show a spirit which would encourage a continuance of unity but a tendency to persuade the world and particularly the soldier that "Codlin's the friend." I must say that that impression is very strong in my mind. I hope that the Government will stand firm on this matter and resist this Amendment.

Mr. A. Bevan: I want to take the opportunity of saying a few words as early as possible in this discussion, because I think a great deal of the sting has been taken out of it by our previous discussion on the Motion to report Progress. Let us look at the actual effect of the Amendment if it is carried. If my hon. Friend thinks that this is a prototype of all similar Clauses then the Amendment must be regarded as a prototype of all future Amendments. What is going to happen then? Every Bill must necessarily contain power to the Government to make regulations and orders. If this Amendment is carried every regulation or order will have to have an affirmative resolution. At any rate that is how I understand it. I sympathise with my hon. Friends, because in most previous Bills the Bill itself has indicated what part of the Bill shall be made the subject of orders or regulations and I have had the experience on many occasions of trying to change a provision far a negative resolution into a provision for a positive resolution. I admit that the Clause does


go beyond some others in the matter of negative resolutions, but hon. Members opposite surely do not want to go to the opposite extreme. Surely they do not want to take up the position that every regulation should be the subject of a positive resolution. That would be an extravagance.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: There was an Order taken earlier in this Session under the Sunday Entertainments Act. An Order just goes through with a nod if it is purely administrative. It goes through without the slightest difficulty.

Mr. Bevan: There are an infinite variety of Orders and regulations made day by day. If the Order Paper is to be loaded with all sorts of Orders we should never be able to sift out the wheat from the chaff. What the House wants is to have brought before it for scrutiny, and for rejection or approval, orders of such importance that the House ought to be consulted upon them before they come into effect. Surely that is what hon. Members opposite want. But they are going much further than that in this Amendment.
If I may say so, it seems that they have not thought about this matter with what I should have considered their customary closeness and attention. Otherwise, they would not have put down this Amendment in quite this form. May I say another thing to my hon. Friends opposite? I have made a suggestion in this House which I think would meet this point. Hon. Members will recall that on many occasions I have protested against the Executive's action in regard to such matters and I have not only complained but I have made positive suggestions to get over the difficulty. I am not complaining that this Amendment has been moved. Obviously hon. Members have to make their protest when the first Bill comes along. [Interruption.] At any rate this is in substance the first Bill. The first Bill did not receive the attention given to this Bill because it was a local Bill. What is troubling me is that hon. Members opposite, who have such a powerful position in the House of Commons, have not sought before the opportunity of bringing this principle before the House.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: The hon. Member is quite wrong.

Mr. Bevan: They have taken part in previous discussions, but not as a matter of general principle. It has always been in connection with a particular piece of legislation. They have argued against particular legislation, I agree, but they have not provided the House of Commons with a persistent and continuing instrument for preventing and making unnecessary such discussion as we are having now. If they will permit me to speak perfectly frankly, may I say that many of us on this side regard their failure to do that, and their attacks on many pieces of legislation, as a general part of their campaign for relaxation of Government control over industry in this country.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think we must confine this argument to this Clause and not get on to other Bills or other regulations.

Mr. Bevan: You, Mr. Williams, will recollect that many general observations fell from the lips of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, and I was waiting for him to call attention to that fact. He asked us, in effect, to vote for this Amendment on two grounds—on the ground of the particular powers conferred upon the Government under the Clause, and on the general ground that such legislation was in itself bad. On particular grounds I agree that the hon. Member may have some justification. I think Members on this side ought to take a lesson from what the Conservative party is now doing. This is an agreed Bill. It is agreed with the employers, it is agreed with the Trades Union Congress, it is agreed with the Conservative party and it is agreed with the Labour party, so that it was assumed that it would have a fairly easy passage. When we moved an Amendment to a similar agreed Bill we were reproached from that side of the House because we were trying to increase workmen's compensation rates in an agreed Bill. Hon. Members opposite indignantly asked how we dared hold up a Bill because we wanted particular improvements. But it does not stop them from moving an Amendment which, if accepted, would obstruct the whole execution of the Bill. If it is carried, everything that would have been the subject of a Regulation or Order which is normal in other Bills would be made the subject of a negative Resolution and would have to


have the positive approval of the House of Commons.
That is unique in Amendments to Bills. It is not unique in Amendments to Bills to secure that this or that portion of a Bill should be the subject of a positive Resolution, but it is unique that the whole Executive action should be made the subject of such a Resolution. Hon. Members opposite have fallen into a trap. In their eagerness to make difficulties they have committed an absurdity. There is, on the other hand, a real principle at stake, that the House of Commons should keep its control over important acts of the Executive, and should not in any circumstances allow them to strain the meaning of the Bill and exercise, through the Civil Service, powers that Parliament never intended them to exercise. That can be accomplished quite easily within the constitution and we ought to start accomplishing it now. It would be out of Order to make a positive suggestion as to how that might be done, but I have made it to the House of Commons. I think it would be in Order to indicate it. If there were a sessional Committee whose duty it was to divide Orders and Regulations into two categories——

The Deputy-Chairman: No, that would be going much too far.

Mr. Bevan: Now the Committee will see what a further infliction the Amendment makes on the House of Commons. It insists upon us discussing the principle in a strait waistcoat. They have insisted that we should discuss the principle in a way to give the greatest Parliamentary obstruction to a particular Bill. They have exposed, not their concern for constitutional procedure, not their desire to assert democratic influence over the Executive, but the cloven hoof of party desires, party intentions and party obstruction.

Major Thorneycroft: The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. J. J. Lawson) thought there was party feeling in this discussion. After listening to the concluding part of the last speech I agree with him. But I do not feel that it is necessary to show quite so much heat, nor do I fully understand the hon. Member's complaint that we have to discuss the subject before us, which

is the question of the way in which Regulations under this Bill shall be approved, and not the general principle, which was debated last July, as to the most appropriate machinery to deal with delegated legislation. I have always taken the view that, if a Bill of this kind is to be worked at all, it is necessary that the Minister should have very wide powers indeed of delegated legislation. I and some of my friends who have looked at the Bill feel that he should not be hampered in any way by being compelled to submit the thing to the courts, or anything of that kind.
Earlier in the proceedings my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford City (Mr. Hogg) put that point of view. So I can be acquitted of any attempt whatever to try to cut down the right hon. Gentleman's powers in any shape or form. I think he ought to have those powers. In those circumstances I come to Clause 19, when one has to discuss in what form those powers should be watched by the House. The Government have really brought this problem upon their own heads. It is obvious that, even if the Amendment is passed, it will not be a wholly satisfactory solution of the problem. But, after all, it is up to the Government to make opportunities, or suggest a procedure which would obviate the difficulty in which we find ourselves. We have to discuss the way in which these regulations can be approved.
I find it rather difficult to understand the attitude of some hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Thomas) a little time ago said that if the general principle were discussed he would support us, and yet he finds it difficult to support us when that principle is applied to a practical case, as in this Bill. It seems to me that that is rather an academic approach to the duties of a committee of this sort. I should like to discuss the general principle but you, Mr. Williams, would not allow me to do so, and that would be right. But I would ask the hon. Member for Keighley and those who share his view if they are in agreement with us in principle, even though they may not feel that this is the best way of applying it, to support us on this occasion. If we compel the Government to accept this Amendment, we shall certainly be in a much stronger position to get something better later on.

Mr. I. Thomas: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman not agree that, if this were discussed on a future occasion, the principle then adopted could be applied to the Regulations under this Bill as under any other?

Major Thorneycroft: The answer is quite simple. If the Government find that the view of the Committee as a whole is that all Regulations should be submitted to an affirmative Resolution of the House they may be much more inclined to devise machinery, which Members on all sides of the House have asked them to do in the past, to obviate difficulties of this kind. In these circumstances I would urge hon. Members opposite to support my hon. Friends in this Amendment, and I would ask the Government to give very serious consideration to it. This is not obstruction in any shape or form. Hon. Members have done everything they can to assist the Government, to give them as wide powers as they wish. There is no question of an attack on my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, for whom I have the highest regard, nor do I believe the Minister himself thinks that an attack of that kind is being made. Constantly I and my hon. Friends associated with me have supported him in difficult circumstances. In these circumstances I hope the Government will see their way to accepting the Amendment.

Flight-Lieutenant Raikes: I would like to associate myself with the observations made by my hon. and gallant Friend. I thought it was a pity when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) almost at the very beginning of this Amendment, took the opportunity of casting that sneer which is so easy to make—particularly when there is not much behind it—that a Labour Minister is being criticised on an Amendment of the Tory Party engaged in their dirty game of trying to hurt Labour interests. He knows quite well that a considerable number of hon. Members supporting this Amendment have supported the Minister of Labour on other occasions. My hon. Friend says something about organisation, but this is a free-for-all Debate. The hon. Member himself a little time ago referred to the Scottish Hydro-Electric Scheme. It seems to me that if hon. Members hold strong views in regard to these questions, they are perfectly entitled, dealing as they

are with the first reconstruction Measure that has come before the House of Commons, to take up their stand on this Amendment. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) pointed out that it was a curious thing that this principle was never debated by hon. Members on this side of the House on any occasion when it could be taken as a principle. I am reminded, as an illustration, that I had myself the opportunity of initiating a discussion in this House in the middle of last year. Then the hon. Member, again by way of illustration, referred to another Measure to show that, while he could not agree, it was submitted as an interim Measure. I do not think anybody is suggesting that the present Bill is an interim Measure to cover a short period of time before we bring in another.

Mr. Bevan: If I may interrupt, the attack made upon me on that occasion was not because I was taking serious opposition to an interim Measure but because I was taking opposition to a Measure which was a great Measure. It is a bad argument.

Flight-Lieutenant Raikes: It simply emphasises the fact that whatever may have been the attacks made upon the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale he must have had so many in this House that he sometimes gets a little confused between them all. The fact remains that it was a different type of Bill from this Bill, was, in fact, an interim Measure and not one which could be classed as a great Measure of reconstruction. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale made one powerful observation in regard to this particular Amendment, and I should like to hasten to embrace my adversary in this particular instance, because he said here that we have a Measure that is unlike almost every Measure produced in Parliament. That was a very fair point, but I repeat to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that if he produces a Measure which again is almost unique in so far that it is entirely negligible, he must not be surprised if it produces a reaction which is affirmative almost beyond belief. In view of the negative principles—can there be a negative principle? Yes, I think so—raised in this Measure, this is an opportunity for hon. Members who believe there should be real control by Parliament of the Executive in any type of reconstruction


Measure to have the opportunity of pressing these principles of the affirmative order, even if the Amendment itself is not as perfect as—if I may say so—the Minister of Labour is imperfect in regard, not to himself, but to the negative performance that he has put up on this Measure.

Mr. Pickthorn: We have had perhaps an untimely—in the view of some—but an amusing Debate. I cannot help it, but the untimeliness is bound to increase and I cannot promise that the amusingness will. I hope there will be less vehemence and recrimination than there was in one or two of the earlier speeches. I would like to answer the question of the hon. Gentleman who preceded me by saying that there is a negative principle in Chinese theology which I believe is called Ying, and in Christian theology the Devil may be regarded as a negative principle. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the positive principle called?"] Yang is the positive principle. I think that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. J. J. Lawson) said he was speaking with the greatest good will in the world and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) told us that he was speaking frankly. My experience, whenever anybody makes either of those two boasts, is that you may be pretty sure that the good will will not extend to the party opposite and that the frankness will be limited to the sins of others than the speaker. I will speak with all good will that I can command and, I hope, with not less than my customary frankness.
There has been an attempt to make out that there is something new in this and a personal attack on the Minister. To take the point about the personal attack, I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that, so far as I have any knowledge of the matter, nothing is further from our minds. If they cannot believe that, I submit to them an argument to which they have not previously paid attention. When there is a Coalition Government there is more temptation for Back Benchers to deride and decry their own Ministers than there is for them to decry and deride Ministers of the other party. If I could sufficiently deride and decry all the Conservative Ministers, and possible Conservative Ministers, it might be possible that I might even become the last deputy acting undersecretary. However much I may be suc-

cessful in puncturing and de-hydrating the right hon. Gentleman——

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will de-hydrate his speech about his own future and come back to this rather narrow point.

Mr. Pickthorn: I have been a little misled by the earlier course of the Debate, not, I think, without excuse. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) secured a Ruling from the Chair that nothing would be in Order except a discussion of the application of the negative and positive rules alternatively to this Bill. Having secured that Ruling, the hon. Gentleman made a long speech upon the principle, and that perhaps slightly misled me. Principles are very difficult things to define, and what a principle itself means is very difficult to define. I take the business of politics to be the discussion of principles——

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is now discussing politics. We are discussing an Amendment to the Bill, and we really must not go into these historical facts. I must ask the hon. Gentleman, as I have asked others, to bring himself much closer to the realities of the Amendment.

Mr. Pickthorn: I was about to say that to begin to discuss this principle in the terms of the concrete facts of this Bill, which I take to be our immediate business——

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt again. We are not discussing the Bill, but an Amendment.

Mr. Pickthorn: I should have said in terms of the Amendment. Whatever arguments there may be in general for the positive or the negative rule, in connection with this Bill, the argument for the positive rule must be the strong one, and much stronger than in connection with normal peace-time Bills because all Bills now, and particularly this Bill, must be hypothetical. How the Bill will be applied, and in what circumstances, must be much more guess work than it would be with the normal peace-time Bill. Therefore, the whole of the argument for a continuous and positive control by this House over complicated legislation must be stronger in a time when all the governing factors are unforeseeable than at a time when most are foreseeable. I do not


think that the facts upon which that argument is based will be denied.
My right hon. Friend has more than once used the argument in resisting Amendments, and sometimes in making half-concessions to Amendments, that he wanted to do what was desired, and that within his powers under the Bill he meant to do what was desired, but that he preferred that it should be left legislatively at large upon his assurance of administrative judiciousness. That argument was reinforced by the Attorney-General in connection with the Clause about the length of time within which a man might be prosecuted. If that argument is to be used in one part of the Bill, I conceive it to be very difficult to resist it when we come to the final Clauses of the Bill. If it be fair to say that a man need not worry about the length of time in which he could be prosecuted if only he had done the right things, if only he was in good standing with the Church, his wife, his employees and the trade unions—if that argument can be used at that point in the Bill, it can be used at this point. If the Minister will produce Regulations that will carry out the wishes of the House he need not worry about the House's consent, and he is clear in his conscience that he is going to do that, he can have no objection to there being a continuous demand for the positive procedure instead of the negative procedure. I am a little sorry that part of my speech, which I thought was of some slight importance was probably not heard by the Minister and the Attorney-General, but if I have persuaded them to listen to this part of my argument I hope they will consider it and that we may have some answer to it.

Mr. Bellenger: At the outset I ought to say that I understand that hon. Members opposite are actuated by the purest of motives and that it is only a coincidence that the Amendment was moved by the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill), who happens to be chairman of an important Conservative committee. It is a pure coincidence. We understand that. What will be the effect of this Amendment if it is carried? As I understand the negative sense of the Clause, the Minister's Department will proceed to draft regulations and Orders, and they will act on the assumption that they can get ahead with carrying out those

Orders unless there are immediate signs in the House of Commons that there will be opposition to them. In that case, I take it, the Department will hold up the regulations and wait and see what happens in the House.
I suggest that what will happen on the majority of the regulations and Orders is that the Ministry will be able to proceed with expedition to do the very thing we have said we wanted and that hon. Members on the other side have said they wanted. That is to provide employment for disabled men and women, particularly disabled ex-Servicemen and women. At some time these men will be surging back to this country and they will want employment quickly. Therefore, the House should strengthen the hands of the Ministry, so that they can make Orders and regulations in order to implement what the House desires, namely, speedy training and work for disabled ex-Servicemen. The Amendment will have the effect of tying the Minister's hands. He will not know, until he has received an affirmative Resolution whether the House will pass the regulations or not, and he will not be able to do much in forwarding preparations to get the regulations operating throughout the country and among the organisations which he will use. He will use not only official organisations, but charitable and welfare organisations. We ought not to impede the Minister in the action we all want him to take.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: I hope that hon. Members opposite will decide to support this Amendment. I believe that, when they re-examine themselves on this matter they will find that their sentiments and their hearts are really with the Amendment. It has been suggested by one or two hon. Members opposite that one of the criticisms of the Amendment is that the general principle has not previously been discussed, but has first been raised on the Bill. That is not the position, because the general principle was raised when the Debate took place last Session on delegated legislation. We urged upon the Government the setting up of a Standing Committee for just this very purpose. That has not yet found favour, but during the course of that Debate hon. Members opposite expressed sympathy with the principles for which the Amendment stands. I hope, therefore, that before they


go into the Division Lobby against the Amendment they will examine that aspect of the matter.
Another criticism of the Amendment which has been made is that, if it is accepted, all the Orders and Regulations will have to be the subject of a positive Resolution. That is perfectly true, and to that extent I believe that the Amendment is not as good as I would like to see it; but of the two evils, whether all the Rules and Regulations have to be subject to negative assent or approval, or subject to a positive Resolution, I prefer, and I hope the Committee will so decide, that they should all be the subject of a positive Resolution. If the Minister feels that he can give an assurance to the Committee that between now and a later stage he will divide up the various powers for which he requires rules and regulations so as to make some of them subject to an affirmative and some of them subject to a negative Resolution, I feel sure that we shall be able to reconsider our position on the matter. If the whole of the rules and regulations are proposed to be subject to a negative Resolution, I hope that the Amendment will be pressed and that hon. Members opposite will decide to support it.

Mr. Bevin: I feel in quite an interesting state, because I find that everybody loves me but nobody likes what I am doing. Therefore, I had better try to explain what I am doing. The Debate, as it has gone on up to now, has had very little to do with the Bill and there has been no attempt, except by the hon. and learned Member who opened the Debate, to touch what I am doing under the Bill. I had better take his points and see whether, on practical grounds, the powers I propose to exercise are such as to warrant this terrible hostility to the Clause. He said that I have power in Clauses 7 and 8 to send a man from Scotland to England. I notice that he did not say that I had power to send a man from England to Scotland. I do not need any power to send men from Scotland to England. We shall not need a Regulation; they will come, anyway. Is there anything terrible in that? He was really dealing with Clause 7 on that point before the Clause was amended. I met all the points of the hon. and learned Member in Clause 7.
What was I asked to do? In the Debate the other night it was stated that

I was taking such power that I could limit a person's right under the Bill if I left it vague. I am not in this House in any party spirit or wanting to resist anybody. I want to get the Bill working, to benefit those who deserve it. I looked at the matter, and, as the Attorney-General knows, I sat down with him and went into the matter very carefully. I said: "I think a point has been made," and on that footing I put an Amendment down to Clause 7. All the issues raised in the speech of the hon. and learned Member were met in that Amendment, and every argument that was raised that night, before the Noble Lord moved to report Progress, including the point about the Dominions, and all the rest of it. I met it and put it in the Bill. Hon. Members' minds were exercised as to whether I was taking too wide a power, so I met it, and put it in the Bill, because I think that is a better way than a positive Resolution, but I have been given no credit for that. Hon. Members are going on with their Amendment as though I had done nothing, and as though I had not tried to meet their points as a result of the Debate last week. I do not think that is quite fair.
Now I look at the regulations under Clause 19, and the regulations which are left. What does it say? I shall have power to reduce the 20. I thought that the House of Commons, with its eyes open, understood that I was going to exercise the right to reduce the 20. Does anybody want me to take up more Parliamentary time, and not merely that, but, what is more difficult, to find Parliamentary time, in order to get the matter brought forward at the time we want it? With the enormous amount of reconstruction legislation that will have to be faced, this question of finding time for positive Resolutions becomes a very serious one indeed. That does not mean that I should abuse it and I claim that I have not abused it in the Bill. I have met the requirements of the House. Are hon. Members going to ask me to take up Parliamentary time in order to make a Regulation that 20 should become 15? I do think that is carrying the matter to an absolute absurdity. Hon. Members cannot have the procedure for which they are now asking, and complain in six months' time that Parliament is not doing its job and is not facing the facts.
Then it is said that I should have power to deal with aliens on the register, but in the regulations we have now we have power to deal with aliens in every other respect. Surely that is not an outrageous thing to entrust to a Minister under a negative Resolution. Those are the three points that this fight is about, and that were raised by the hon. and learned Member, with all his experience, and there is not another one. No Member, in the Debate since, has raised a point beyond those three points that are disturbing their minds.
I looked at this very carefully because I knew this controversy was on. I said to my Department, "What are the precedents? What is the kind of thing that Parliament has done hitherto in this type of legislation?" I think that is a fair question to put to one's Department. What answer did I get? I found that this House had negative Resolutions for the Anomalies Regulations, far more harsh in their operation than anything I shall do here, Benefit Regulations, Contributions Regulations, Courts of Referees Regulations, Crediting of Contributions Regulations, Determination of Questions Regulations, Employment Outside the United Kingdom Regulations, Inconsiderable Employment Regulations and a lot of others. I give those as samples. Let me turn to others. From 1909 the Trades Board Acts, with all the obligations imposed upon employers for records and everything else that has to be done, have been done on the very basis of the Clause I have put in this Bill. The Road Haulage Wages Act, the Catering Wages Act, which I thought was the first Reconstruction Bill, and that this was the second—I do not mind which has pride of place, both are good—all that legislation as affecting my Department had been done on the basis proposed in this Bill.

Mr. A. Bevan: The Assistance Board.

Mr. Bevin: The Assistance Board is another thing. That is dealt with by positive Resolution and I think that is right. I will tell the Committee why. The Assistance Board Regulations deal specifically with expenditure of public money. It is a very important point, and if I came along trying to get power to get outside the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury and the right of this House regarding public money, I

do not think I would have a leg to stand on in Debate. Neither do I think I should have much chance if I sought to limit by Regulations what I call the right of the beneficiary under the Act. That is why I immediately amended Clause 7 and put in the Bill what kind of Regulation would be required, because I did see that giving to a Department or a Minister power by Regulation to take away something which Parliament had given the citizen involved a point of principle. But it is not for me to settle that in this Debate or on this Bill.
I claim that in this Bill on merit, I would emphasise on merit, I held strictly to precedent. I have confined myself to what this House has done over and over again. I have not introduced a new principle in this Bill, I have not done anything that Parliament has not done over and over again in this Session. I go further. I have kept within the very framework of the legislation which my Department has had to administer and take over from the old Board of Trade right from 1909. Having kept so strictly within the framework of all the industrial legislation. I have to administer in the same Department, and based this Bill on strictly parallel lines, I think it is most unfortunate that in the case of the halt, the lame and the blind a political fight should have been started.

Sir A. Southby: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the closing words of the Minister. I should like to associate myself with what has been said earlier by those hon. Members on these back benches who have expressed their personal admiration and friendship for the right hon. Gentleman. I would ask hon. Members opposite to believe that it simply is not true to say that there is any question of personal antipathy or desire to injure the right hon. Gentleman in any way at all. There is no question of personal prejudice or party prejudice. We are all of us in this Committee trying to do something for the disabled man and because we differ in our views as to how it is to be done there is no reason why anyone should suggest that others are not as sincere as themselves.
Speaking for myself I certainly believe that in moving this Amendment we have the interests of the disabled men at heart. To argue that because in other Measures this principle of the negative resolution


has been adopted is really no argument. I believe that in order to protect the interests of the disabled men it would be better if Parliament were able to discuss the matter on a positive resolution instead of a negative one. It is really monstrous that anyone should suggest that if I express that conviction I am moved by a desire to gain party advantage or to obstruct the right hon. Gentleman in any way.
As I said just now the Debate on this Bill has been marked by good nature and a desire to help on both sides of the Committee. Earlier in the Bill it was suggested that the House of Commons should not delegate its powers to the courts. Here we have an Amendment which is designed to see to it that the House of Commons does retain its powers. Yet it is now argued strongly that on no account must the House of Commons be allowed to retain its control. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) whom I listened to with great pleasure, and who says he is frequently attacked, is one of those people who seem to thrive on attack more than anyone I have met. It stimulates him to come here and make interesting and engaging speeches in which he bites everyone in sight and has a happy day. I agree with him that there is a big principle behind this question and I wish we could have a Debate on it. But because we cannot have that Debate now is no reason why we should continue to apply to these disabled persons in this Bill a principle which we think is bad, and which we also think has gone on for long enough. The list of Bills which the Minister read out really makes my case for me. It has gone on long enough. I believe it has gone on too long. If I believe this to be true then I am doing a service to the disabled men if I say, "So far as they apply to you the House of Commons is going to keep control and is not going to delegate these powers to anyone else." I know that so far as this Amendment is concerned we may express our opinions in the Division Lobbies, but I beg hon. Members to believe that because we differ from them on this particular question we are none the less eager to see this Bill get on to the Statute Book and help disabled persons. I took a little exception

to a remark which fell from the lips of the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), when it was suggested that it would be better to have this Debate adjourned. He seemed to imply—I hope he did not mean to—that those of us who would like to have had Progress reported were less sincere in our desire to help the ex-Serviceman than he was. I can assure him that he is not the only person anxious to help the ex-Serviceman.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is going back to a previous Amendment. I think we might keep to this one.

Sir A. Southby: If we divide on this matter, it is not because of any personal animus against the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great respect, although I do not like some of the things he does.

Mr. Driberg: I am sure no one would question for a moment the salty sincerity of the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby), but I think the right hon. Gentleman's answer exposed amply the hollowness and chicanery of the case put forward by the movers of the Amendment, and I hope that, for the sake of their own credit and of the national unity which they are so fond of preaching when it suits them, they will not have the effrontery to press it to a Division.

Mr. Tinker: I have sat here during the whole Debate, and it has reached a very high level from the debating point of view. I appeal to hon. Members, after the statement which the Minister has made, to realise that he is only carrying out the policy that he has adopted all along on other Acts. This is called an agreed Measure, and they ought to accept the Minister's word. I do not know about the merits of the case, but, after hearing all sides, I think Members would be well advised to give the Minister their full confidence and not divide on this Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 72; Noes, 18.

Division No. 3.
AYES.



Adamson, Mrs. Jennie L. (Dartford)
Hepburn, Major P. G. T. Buchan-
Quibell, D. J. K.


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Hughes, R. Moelwyn
Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
John, W.
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. Oliver


Beechman, N. A.
Kendall, W. D.
Stephen, C.


Bellenger, F. J.
Key, C. W.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Bennett, Sir P. F. B. (Edgbaston)
Lawson, H. M. (Skipton)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Bevan, A. (Ebbw Vale)
Lawson, J. J. (Chester-le-Street)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)
Leslie, J. R.
Thomas, I. (Keighley)


Bowles, F. G.
Loverseed, J. E.
Tinker, J. J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
McCallum, Major D.
Tomlinson, G.


Buchanan, G.
McCorquodale, Malcolm S.
Tafnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.


Cary, R. A.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Waterhouse, Captain Rt. Hon. C.


Dobbie, W.
Wander, G. le M.
Watt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)


Drewe, C.
Mathers, G.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Messer, F.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)


Ede, J. C.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. (Rochdale)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Foster, W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Woodburn, A.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Grenfell, D. R.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W.



Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Islington, N.)
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Guy, W. H.
Prescott, W. R. S.
Mr. Boulton and Mr. Pym.




NOES.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir Ian (Lonsdale)
Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.


Berry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham)
Gretton, J. F.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Butcher, H. W.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Cobb, Captain E. C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Colegate, W. A.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.



Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Etherton, Ralph
Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.
Major Manningham-Buller and




Capt. Thorneycroft.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: I beg to move, in page 15, line 19, to leave out Sub-section (3).
The effect of the Sub-section is to take the Rules out of the provisions of the Rules Publication Act. I cannot see why there should be an effort made to do away with the ordinary publication, which the law, as it at present stands, would necessitate, of these Regulations. It may be that the Attorney-General has some explanation to make and I would ask him to give the Committee that explanation.

The Attorney-General: This is a common form Clause that occurs in a very large number of Bills. The machinery of the Sub-section is the Rules Publication Act which provides for notification in the "London Gozette" of local authorities and others making objections. It has really been found very inappropriate and ineffective for the normal type of Regulations. We are not taking any exceptional course in saying that it should not apply to these Regulations. If one looks at previous Acts, it will be seen that Parliament has agreed on many occasions to that particular section, the framers of which, no doubt, had some

particular type of rule in mind. It is really inapplicable and always causes delay, apart from expense in putting it in the "London Gazette."

Sir J. Lamb: In what publication will regulations be advertised so that people will know the position?

The Attorney-General: When they are presented to Parliament, no doubt my hon. Friend will be entitled to obtain the views of bodies entitled to express their views on the matter.

Sir J. Lamb: A vast number of orders and regulations are made and it is conceivable that many people will miss the Orders unless there are processes whereby they can safeguard themselves by knowing when an Order has been made.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: In view of the explanation that has been given by my right hon. and learned Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 21.—(Provisions as to Northern Ireland.)

Mr. Bevin: I beg to move, in page 16, line 23, after "Ireland," to insert "for such purposes as aforesaid."
This is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that the provision extends to expenses incurred by the Government of Northern Ireland for purposes of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Preference for ex-Servicemen and Women.)

The Minister shall so exercise his discretion in selecting persons for vocational training and industrial rehabilitation courses and facilities under section fifteen of this Act at any time while it appears to him that they cannot for the time being be provided for all persons in need of them, and in selecting persons registered as handicapped by disablement with a view to submitting their names for engagements, as to secure that, so far as consistent with the efficient exercise of his powers, preference shall be given to persons of the following classes, that is to say:—

(a) men who have served whole time in the armed forces of the Crown or in the merchant navy or the mercantile marine; and
(b) women who have served whole time in any of the capacities mentioned in the Schedule (Women's Services) to this Act.—[Mr. Bevin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bevin: I beg to 'move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is an attempt to give effect to the undertaking which I gave to the Committee during the Debate last week. I think that it meets all the points that were raised and I hope it will be adopted.

Mr. Hutchinson: I feel a certain amount of disappointment with this Clause. On the Second Reading Debate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that it was the expectation of the Government that all registered disabled persons would be absorbed into industry. If that were so there would be no need for a preference to be given to ex-Service disabled persons or to any other class of disabled person. But these expectations may not be realised; and the Parliamentary Secretary accordingly went on to say that if, in fact, they were not realised, there would be no hesitation in introduc-

ing such measures as may be necessary to ensure that the needs of the ex-Service disabled are first met. So the position is that there was really no difference between the Government and those of us who desired that some preference should be given to ex-Service disabled persons, if it became necessary at a later stage. We were all agreed that so long as all registered disabled persons could be absorbed into the industry, we would be satisfied, but if it proved impossible for them to be absorbed, then preference was to be given to the ex-Servicemen.
So far, so good; but when one looked at the Bill one found that there was in the Bill as originally presented, no power to give any preference to ex-Service disabled persons at all. Accordingly, I and a large number of hon. Friends put down an Amendment which provided that the Minister should make regulations providing that a preference should be given in allocating vacancies. We wanted to be satisfied that the Minister would have power, if the necessity arose, to make provision for a preference to be given to ex-Service disabled persons. I had hoped that my right hon. Friend would have come to the House and expressed his gratitude to the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) and my hon. Friends for having directed his attention to this matter and for having proposed that something should go into the Bill which would enable him to carry into effect what he, and we, desired him to do. The Clause which my right hon. Friend has just moved seeks to give effect to the policy announced by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on Second Reading. I invite the attention of the Committee to the terms of the Clause. It is this Clause which is intended to fulfil the intention which the Parliamentary Secretary announced of providing everything that was necessary to enable a preference to be given to the Service disabled. This is how it is done:
The Minister so shall exercise his discretion in selecting persons … registered as handicapped by disablement with a view to submitting their names for engagements, as to secure that, so far as consistent with the sufficient exercise of his powers, preference shall be given of the following classes.…
Then follows the different classes to whom the preference is to be given. I hope the Minister can explain the significance of the words:


… so far as consistent with the efficient exercise of his powers.…
That is the most incomplete form of statutory power I have ever encountered. The importance of this business is that, if it is necessary to do so, there should be power to put pressure upon the employer to take a disabled ex-Service person in preference to a disabled person who is not an ex-Service man. That was the declared policy on the Second Reading Debate.

Mr. Tomlinson: No, not at any time. The suggestion was that preference could be given only in submission. Never under any circumstances could it be imposed.

Mr. Hutchinson: What the Parliamentary Secretary said was this:
The special claims of the war disabled will be kept constantly in mind and there will be no hesitation in introducing such measures as may be necessary to ensure that their needs are first met."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1943; col. 1270, Vol. 395.]
I should have thought that that meant that the Parliamentary Secretary was proposing to take powers to put pressure upon the employer to take an ex-Service disabled person in preference to any other.

Mr. Tomlinson: No.

Mr. Hutchinson: If that is not what was meant and that is not the Government's policy then we are back again in the position we were in under the King's Roll, in which the employer who is not prepared to do the right thing cannot be compelled to do it. It is for that reason that this Clause appears to be unsatisfactory. It means that so far as securing a preference for the ex-Service disabled man there is no greater power to secure that preference than there is at the present time. So, as I have said, we are back again in precisely the same difficulty as was encountered in connection with the King's Roll. If we had been dealing in this Clause with a state of affairs that exists at present I should have hoped that we might have had an opportunity of negativing it. But, after all, we are not; we are dealing with a state of affairs which all of us hope will never come into existence. We are dealing with a purely hypothetical case. Therefore, I merely direct attention to the shortcomings of this Clause and leave it at that.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: The Committee will remember that last week, when this

matter of preference was raised, an Amendment was moved which was much more limiting than the operation of the new Clause which has just been moved by the Minister. That Amendment limited preference to all men serving at the present time, who are disabled. As we pointed out then that would exclude the ex-soldiers of the last war who were injured in industry, soldiers who served in France and in North Africa, who had been disabled at their work, and it would also exclude serving men who returned after the war, fit, and who were then injured in industry and were, under that Amendment, excluded from benefits under the Bill. My right hon. Friend has now moved a new Clause which gives preference to the following classes of persons:

"(a) men who have served whole time in the armed forces of the Crown or in the merchant navy or the mercantile marine; and
(b) women who have served whole time in any of the capacities mentioned in the Schedule (Women's Services) to this Act."

That is a great extension and means that all men and women who have served at any time, even if they are injured in industry, will benefit by this Bill and will have preference. That meets some of the objections we raised on last week's Amendment. As I said on that occasion, speaking for my right hon. and hon. Friends, we would not base our opposition to the Amendment on the narrow ground that it had certain limitations. We objected to the principle of preference because it made a distinction between the ordinary citizens of this country and those who are serving. We all understand the great sympathy there is for serving men and women, who feel that the ex-Service men of the last war were neglected. So far as training and employment were concerned they were treated harshly. Now this Bill, comprehensive and with a great deal of good will behind it, for the first time makes preparation for the ex-Service men and women of this country as well as the ordinary citizens.
I object to this distinction. I think it is a bad social principle and I object to it for many reasons. In the first place, it is giving the serving man preference over a very deserving section of society which moves the country very much—the children, boys and girls, young men and women, who have been disabled from birth, who are blind, deaf, dumb and


with all kinds of disabilities. I think there is no more pathetic figure in our national life than a child disabled from birth, except, perhaps, the woe of the parents before the child comes to understand its particular position. There are tens of thousands of them. This Clause gives the serving man preference for training—if there is a shortage of training and employment—over that section of society. I could not believe that the British soldier would want to claim preference over that section of society.

Mr. Hutchinson: Will the hon. Member excuse me? He said it gives the soldier preference in employment, or I understood him to say so. Surely that is precisely what this Clause does not do.

Mr. Lawson: Oh, yes, as long as there is a shortage of places for training and as long as there is a shortage of employment, it gives the serving man preference for training and for employment over all other sections. I do not understand my hon. and learned Friend, but the fact remains that the Minister has extended the operation of preference in a much more desirable way, but I say it gives the serving man preference over a very deserving section of the population of this country.
I do not believe that the soldier himself would want preference over children who have disabilities. Indeed, my hon. Friend reminds me that this limitation of the operation of this Bill will bring many unexpected results for the Minister and for those who have to operate it. The serving man will come home, as will some of those whose children are defective, and who cannot get training themselves, although they are serving men. A man may come home who has a brother who has been in the mines or other industry and has been refused the opportunity to serve in the Forces. A great part of the trouble at the present moment is because the miners were prevented from serving and are disgruntled about it. A soldier or a naval man may come home and find that a brother has been disabled in industry—a brother who wanted to serve and was refused the opportunity—and they will not have the same opportunity of training and employment. It divides a house against itself. When I think of what is visualised here—because the Minister has been compelled to accept this

as a compromise—when I think of what is at the back of his mind—the fact that there is to be a shortage of training places and there will be unemployment—I wonder where the fine frenzy of 1940–41 has gone—the drastic re-organisation that is going to get everybody working and do wonderful things, for us. That, apparently, has gone. The dream and the vision have gone, and that is a fine message to send to the serving men. I am speaking for my hon. Friends behind me when I say this, and it is risky to say these things, because I know from experience. We are attacking this on principle. it is a bad social principle that hon. Members have forced upon the Minister, and I venture to say that the soldier himself will say so when he gets back and exercises his rights of citizenship.

Mr. Mander: I must say that I think the new Clause goes very far to meet the pledge the Minister gave to the House the other day. He did not want to put anything into the Bill, but wanted the House to rely on the pledge he had given, but he was pressed very strongly by several Members on that side of the House, and, to a certain extent, on this side, to put something into the Bill and to undertake to give consideration to it before this stage was reached. I think he has really carried out that pledge and given the preference which the House wanted. I think it is perfectly right that such a preference should be given for two reasons. First of all, perhaps, the sentimental reason—the man in the Services who is cut off, away from home, uprooted and in constant danger in a strange land, while the worker at home in a factory is at any rate living in his own home. The second point is that the man who is serving overseas is not in many cases learning a trade or fitting himself for work in civil life. He is losing all that time. On the other hand, a man working at home—and whether the one is taken and the other left is a matter of luck and we must abide by it—the man at home is learning some trade and cultivating his skill, and, to that extent, has an advantage over his brother who may be serving overseas.
I think, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in putting in a preference of this kind and I believe that it will be approved by the workers in


the factories who fully appreciate the difference in the circumstances. I am anxious to make an appeal to him on one point. I think one particular class of men and women have been left out of this classification and that is the pilots serving in the Air Transport Auxiliary. There are hundreds of men and women who since the beginning of the war have been flying single-, twin- and four-engined machines day after day all over the country to different aerodromes very often each time. It requires the greatest skill and experience. If they are disabled in the course of their duties I think they have quite as strong a case as some of those in the definition here. Perhaps the reason why they have been accidentally left out is that they happen to come under the Ministry of Aircraft Production but they ought to be included. The hon. Gentleman cannot give me an answer to-night but I am sure he will give me an assurance that he will carefully consider it.

Major Manningham-Buller: I will not try to deal with the many points raised by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). They bore a remarkable similarity to the points that were raised and disposed of last week. The Minister said he would put words into the Bill. I should like to put it on record that, in my view, he has carried out his pledge fully and I could not criticise one word of the proposed Amendment. In my view, it carries out the declared object behind the Amendment which I moved, to far better effect. It has left the Minister with the discretion that I should like him to have. I intervene only to put that on record.

Mr. Bellenger: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a little too optimistic if he thinks that the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) was disposed of finally last week. I think I know at any rate as well as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the feeling of the troops on this and other matters. [Interruption.] It is purely a matter of opinion whether I am as well able to express an opinion as the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I like to think I am.

Major Manningham-Buller: When I said "disposed of," I meant so far as the issue in the House was concerned in Committee on this Bill.

Mr. Bellenger: That may be so, but what is disposed of in Committee in this House is not necessarily disposed of in the country and I think when the troops come home and realise the full implication of the limiting effect of this new Clause, which as my hon. Friend said has been forced on the Minister probably against his better judgment, I think they will demand much more comprehensive measures to deal with their kith and kin who are expressly excluded from all advantages under the Bill by the new Clause. Many of their wives, sisters and sweethearts have been serving in civil defence who have done a good job of work under conditions almost as arduous as the Services, and they are excluded from the benefits to be obtained under the Clause.

Mr. Hutchinson: The hon. Member says the Clause was forced upon the Minister. Surely, as far as preference for employment is concerned, it was always his declared policy that if all the disabled persons could not be absorbed, a preference should be given to the Services.

Mr. Bellenger: I think what the Minister said was that they had been observing conditions something like that in their administration of the interim measures adopted by the Minister of Labour. But as far as training facilities are concerned, I think the House has done wrong in forcing the Minister to give preference to ex-Service men, because the training facilities are there, both in industry and in the Ministry of Labour training centres, at any rate for disabled people and we have done wrong in limiting them to one class alone. I admitted on the Second Reading that, if there is to be a scramble for jobs, I think those who have been face to face with the enemy—not all of them have—should have preferential treatment if they have suffered disability in that task. But I think hon. Members should be more concerned with seeing that full employment is available not only for the disabled but for the fit ex-Service man when he comes back than with concentrating on one very narrow class and so creating, I am afraid, bitterness between those who have been conscripted or directed into industry and those who have gone into the Services. I think that is a very serious situation for the British Legion and they had better be careful that they do not foster a spirit which sets


class against class—the class of the disabled ex-Service man and the class of the disabled civilian. I do not propose to carry my opposition to the new Clause further to-night but I shall do my best to urge upon the Minister and upon returning ex-Service men that what they should concentrate on is full employment both for the disabled and for the fully able.

Sir I. Fraser: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) expressed his disappointment. I understand that, having regard to the wording of the Amendment that he himself put down. But I would like to persuade him and any of my hon. Friends who are in doubt about the matter of my view, with regard to the effect of this new Clause, to give a preference for training cases and a preference in the submission of names for vacancies. In my view that is an effective preference both in the training sphere and in the employment sphere. It does not, admittedly, go so far as to force employers to take particular people but that would be an undesirable thing to do in any case. It would be unworkable and not likely to lead to congenial employment or to good relations betwen the two parties.
I would like to confirm what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Daventry (Major Manningham-Buller) said. My view is that these words carry out, faithfully and fully, the promises made by the right hon. Gentleman in the earlier part of the Committee stage, and I would like to offer him sincere thanks for having gone so far to meet the points that were put forward. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. J. J. Lawson) and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) spoke of the limitation put upon the Bill by this new Clause. I think there is a confusion of thought here. There is no limitation that I can see. The main thing that the Bill does—and this is the main thing for which I praise the Minister of Labour—is to give a priority in the matter of employment to disabled persons as a whole by a quota system. It must not be forgotten that that is the main virtue of the Bill. A subsidiary virtue now proposed to be incorporated, as I see it, is that within this quota there is to be a preference for men who have served. That is gratifying and, I think, of wide and important national significance. This is the first

big Reconstruction Measure, as has been said.
It is important and, I think, significant that in it the Committee should register its view that Ministers henceforth would have to take note of the fact that ex-Servicemen and women are, where there is a limitation of facilities, to have a preference. That is an important recognition by Parliament and the nation of their obligations to those particular men and I am peculiarly glad that it should be written into this first reconstruction Measure. Finally, I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having made this concession and to express my belief that it will afford him all the powers that are necessary to carry out the intentions he has expressed. I am sure that those who fear that ex-Servicemen will come back from the wars and be inclined to criticise him, or us, in the matter will find they the mistaken. I am sure that the ex-Service community, and the serving soldiers who are potential ex-Service men, will find that Parliament has done right by them in giving them this measure of attention in the Bill.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: I only want to intervene very briefly on the question of what the Services and particularly those overseas desire, because it has been my privilege during the last 3½ years to have been working actively amongst those men. I can assure the Committee, that there is no desire among the men in the British Army for preferential treatment for themselves, over other members of the community. The idea behind this business of providing special facilities for ex-Servicemen is a confession of failure, a confession that we in this House do not really believe that there is going to be full employment. What the Services desire and demand as a right, is that there should be full employment and full rehabilitation and training for everybody. It is unfortunate that the Minister has been pressed to move this Clause, because it will give the people in the Services, particularly those abroad, the idea that we are not really tackling this problem with vision and that things will be after this war as they were after the last. That is the sort of thing that will cause dismay and despondency among the troops.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I cannot help feeling that the case for the ex-


Serviceman as put by the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) and others is really in the highest realms of our national thought. We have through the centuries given nothing like the attention and regard that we should have done to ex-Servicemen. I am distressed when I hear the sort of sentiments which we have heard once or twice in this Debate from admirable and hon. Members of Parliament which, I suggest, are the echoes of those sentiments which down the centuries have caused this country to discard and to disregard those who have served it in the Armed Forces of the Crown. If we read the history of the West Indies and of the Napoleonic Wars, we see what the men went through in those times and the way in which regiments were decimated and reduced by 80 per cent. of their strength; and how commanding officers wrote home after 10 years abroad and said, "I think you have forgotten us." We still keep regiments abroad in tropical countries for eight years and think nothing of it. I say it is a tragedy. No one wants to say that there is not something glorious, magnificent and courageous in the life of the coalminer, the quarryman and many others, but I say that we owe the greatness of this country almost entirely to those men whom some of us to-day would relegate to the old position of discard and disregard in which they had to suffer for so many centuries. I welcome this slight measure of preference which the Minister has moved, and I am confident that it is supported in the hearts of every man, woman and thinking child in the country. This is the first time in any legislation of importance such as this Bill that we have arrived at such a fine conclusion.

Mr. Tinker: I agree that if there is a shortage of labour, ex-Servicemen should have the first chance, but this new Clause conveys the impression that there is in our minds going to be unemployment after the war. I am looking forward to a future in which there will be no unemployment for anyone. That is the vision we have, but this Clause seems to convey that there will be a large volume of unemployment after the war. We do not want to get that idea into our minds. I do not see how anybody can speak against the new Clause, but I want the Minister to tell us that it is the intention of the Government to see that in future we do not lapse into the position

into which we lapsed after the last war, a position of desolation, unemployment and want.

Mr. Tomlinson: May I reply to the point that was put by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander)? It is true that that section of the community to which he refers would be regarded by most people as coming within the same category as those provided for in the Bill. While he was speaking I could think of another half-dozen civil employments which would come into the same category. I think that this new Clause does what the Minister suggested he would do. I would like to emphasise that we shall strive to prevent the Clause becoming necessary. We have believed from the beginning that provision should be made for all, but if there is to be a queue, the men who have served are entitled to be at the head of it. This is an admission that there may be a danger of that, and hon. Members wanted it to go into the Bill. The proposed new Clause puts it into the Bill, but the success of the undertaking will be if we render it unnecessary.

Mr. Mander: I did ask my hon. Friend to give serious consideration to a suggestion which I made.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am sorry. I intended to say that.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to advisory council and committees.)

Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 18, line 9, after "including," to insert:
one or more persons having had experience in the administration of the training of disabled persons; representatives of the medical profession and.
The Amendment is very simple. Its intention is to include in the provisions of the Bill an assurance that, on the national council and local advisory committees there shall be those who have experience in rehabilitation and members of the medical profession. I would emphasise the representation of the medical profession. In addition to being a doctor, a doctor is sometimes a man. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sometimes he is a woman."] Well, "man" embraces that. It will be


important to have members of the profession and those who make a speciality of rehabilitation. I might allude in passing to that great experiment at Gleneagles. There are many such specialists in London and the Minister knows some of them. I want to avoid a position in which the district committees will refer cases to a panel. I want medical men to take part in the general working of the committee so that the medical viewpoint will be present on them.

Mr. Tomlinson: It is our intention to do what is now proposed, but to accept the wording of the Amendment would limit the Minister in the appointment of these committees. It is intended that men who have had experience in the direction suggested shall be appointed to the committees. It is true that a doctor may be a friend as well as a doctor, and be interested in these matters. It will also be necessary for medical advice to be obtained for the benefit of the panel, and I would point out that it would be necessary to have committees in a great many places where people can be found who have specialised in these matters, whatever the profession to which they belong. We shall hope to incorporate them on the committees.

Mr. Messer: If I can accept my hon. Friend's remarks as an assurance that medical men will be members of the committees and not merely members of the panels, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Tomlinson: I beg to move, in page 18, line 13, at the end, to insert:
(2) In the absence of the chairman of the said council or of any of the said committees his functions may be performed by a member of the council or committee authorised in that behalf by the Minister.
The purpose of this Amendment is first to repair an omission in the Schedule. It is clearly necessary to make some provision for another member of the council or committee to act as the chairman in the absence of the chairman. Otherwise the council or committee would be unable to function in the temporary absence of the chairman. This Amendment makes that possible.

Amendment agreed to.

Read-Admiral Beamish: I beg to move, in page 18, line 13, at the end, to insert:
2. Each district committee shall include one representative of the British Legion.
I want to say a word or two on this. My only connection with the British Legion is that I originally joined one of its very earliest branches at the end of the last war. Since that time my only link has been as president of a local branch of a small parish in Sussex, which is a very successful branch. I should not like the Committee to think I have anything to do with the Executive Council or that I have received a brief in this matter of any kind or any hints of any kind. I have not. The only reason I have put it forward is because I know the work of the British Legion includes an immense number of the men of this country and also of the women, because there is a women's section, who have very close understanding, sympathy and appreciation for the ex-Serviceman. The legionnaire is himself an ex-Serviceman.
I could not help feeling when I read the Bill through as carefully as I could that these district committees will certainly be well served. If the Minister could see his way to include upon them some ex-officer sometimes, not by any manner of means invariably, or, I hope, an ex-rating or other rank from the Army, Navy or Air Force who is a highly respected member of the Brtish Legion, he will certainly be able to help the District Committee.

Mr. Bevin: I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed. I have been very careful in this Bill not to name any organisation at all. Once you start giving legal status in a Bill to one particular organisation you immediately get into trouble. What we have said regarding employers' and workers' associations—and within the meaning of the law the British Legion has been ruled by the umpires to be a workers' association—is that I shall consule them. But there are some parts of the country where there are other types of ex-Service men's organisations which I must also take into account. What I am anxious about it not to give any legal prescriptive right in the Bill to any particular association but to take advantage of all of them as people of good will who may be able to help me to find people for carrying an the work.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I rather suspected that the Minister would say something like that. If I may say so, he has said a very wise thing. I realise what deep waters you could get into if you once made an exception. I think I tried to put in as good a word as I possibly could for the British Legion, and as the Minister has said he would consult them, which meets to a very great extent what I have in my mind, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Tomlinson: I beg to move, in page 18, line 50, at the end, to add:
(3) References in this paragraph to the procedure of the said council, of a commitee or of a panel, include references to the quorum of that body.
Again this is to remedy an omission. The Amendment is necessary as unless a provision is made regarding the quorum of the Council or Committee the whole Council or Committee would have to be present before it could function. Therefore it is intended to make the quorum of the body act as though the Committee had acted.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NEW SCHEDULE.—(Women's Services.)

1. Member of Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service or any reserve thereof.
2. Member of the Women's Royal Naval Service.
3. Woman medical practitioner serving in the Royal Navy or any naval reserve.
4. Member of Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service or any reserve thereof.
5. Member of the Territorial Army Nursing Service or any reserve thereof.
6. Member of the Auxiliary Territorial Service.

7. Woman employed with the Royal Army Medical Corps or the Army Dental Corps with relative rank as an officer.
8. Member of Princess Mary's Royal Air Force Nursing Service or any reserve thereof.
9. Member of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force.
10. Women employed with the Medical Branch or the Dental Branch of the Royal Air Force with relative rank as an officer.
11. Member of the Voluntary Aid Detachments employed under the Admiralty, Army Council or Air Council.—[Mr. Bevin.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL

Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Committee upon the next Sitting Day.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Barry, a copy of which Order was presented to this House on 25th January, be approved."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]